Allowed

The Chairman Cum Managing v. Deivalingam

Madras HC5 Dec 2019AS/375/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court followed a Division Bench judgment to set aside judgments and decrees of the Special Court in multiple Land Acquisition Appeals. The court ruled that the appellants had no liability for compensation and allowed the appeals, permitting the withdrawal of deposited amounts by the first appellant.

What did the court decide?

The judgments and decrees passed by the Special Court in the listed Land Acquisition Awards were set aside; the first appellant is permitted to withdraw deposited amounts and interest; other aspects o

The Chairman Cum Managing Vs Deivalingam — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05-12-2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite … 1^st Appellant / Respondent in all AS Corporation Limited,Neyveli. 2. The Managing Director, … 2^nd Appellant / 3^rd Respondent in Tamil Nadu Industrial AS Nos.375, 377 to 390 of 2011

¶6

Development Corporation, (3^rd Respondent was transposed as 2^nd Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Appellant vide order in MP No.1/2015, dated 15.10.2015) .. 2^nd Appellant / 4^th Respondent in AS No.376 of 2011 (4^th Respondent was was transposed as 2^nd Appellant vide order dated 15.10.2015 in MP No.1/ 2015)

¶7

¶8

Deivalingam …1^st Respondent in AS No.375 of 2011 2. Arumairaj 3. Anbalagan …1^st & 2^nd Respondents in AS No.376 of 2011 4. Aachiammal …1^st Respondent in AS No.377 of 2011 5. Paramasivam …1^st Respondent in AS No.378 of 2011 6. Danavel …1^st Respondent in AS No.379 of 2011 7. Vinaiyathan …1^st Respondent in AS No.380 of 2011 8. Chandran …1^st Respondent in AS No.381 of 2011 9. Ramanathan …1^st Respondent in AS No.382 of 2011 10. Chandravel …1^st Respondent in AS No.383 of 2011 11. Kaliaperumal …1^st Respondent in AS No.384 of 2011 12. Selvam …1^st Respondent in AS No.385 of 2011 13. Balasubramanian …1^st Respondent in AS No.386 of 2011 14. Tamilmani …1^st Respondent in AS No.387 of 2011 15.Samidurai …1^st Respondent in AS No.388 of 2011 16. K.Rajendiran …1^st Respondent in AS No.389 of 2011 17.C.Rajendiran …1^st Respondent in AS No.390 of 2011

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

The Special Tahsildar … 2^nd Respondent in AS Nos.375, 377 to (Land Acquisition) 390 of 2011 & 3^rd Respondent in AS Jayamkondam Lignite No.376 of 2011 Thermal Power Scheme, Jayamkondam.

¶11

Appeals filed Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2010 passed in LAOP Nos.3990, 3992, 3993, 3994, 3997, 3988, 3999, 4002, 4003, 3983, 3988, 4004, 4005, 4008, 4010 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Special Court No.1, Jayamkondam.

¶12

For Appellant 1^st Appellant Mr. N.Nithianandam in all Appeal Suits No representation 2^nd Appellant For Respondents Mr. A.S. Vijay Anand For R1 in AS Nos.375,377 to 390 of 2011 & R1 & 2 in AS 376 of 2011 For R2 Mr. J.Balagopal, Special Government Pleader (AS) in AS Nos.375,377 to 390 of 2011 & R3 in AS 376 of 2011 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶13

The issues involved in the First Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. These First Appeals are filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Special Court, Jayamkondam in the following L.A.O.Ps:

¶14

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special	IN A.S.Nos
		Court No.
L.A.O.P.No.3990 of	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.375 of
2008			2011

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special Court No. IN A.S.Nos
L.A.O.P.No.3992 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.376 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3993 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.377 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3994 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.378 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3997 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.379 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3988 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.380 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3999 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.381 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4002 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.382 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4003 of 2008	19.10.2010	1 A.S.No.383 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3983 of 2008	20.10.2010	1 A.S.No.384 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3988 of 2008	20.01.2013	1 A.S.No.385 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3989 of 2008	19.01.2013	1 A.S.No.386 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4004 of 2008	29.10.2010	1 A.S.No.387 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4005 of 2008	29.10.2010	1 A.S.No.388 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4008 of 2008	29.10.2010	1 A.S.No.389 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4010 of 2008	29.10.2013	1 A.S.No.390 of 2011

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the first instance, brought to the notice of this Court that the similar issues in respect of the same acquisition proceedings were concluded and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed a judgment on 27.08.2015 in A.S.Nos.233 to 239 of 2013 & etc., batch and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Paragraphs 18 to 23 are extracted hereunder:

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

“18.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the lands were not acquired for the benefit of the appellant at the beginning. The Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act, whatsoever, were not issued, showing the appellant as the requisitioning body. The original Notifications were issued only for the purpose of implementing the power project at the behest of TIDCO. As a matter of fact, TIDCO associated itself with a company by name McNally Bharath Engineering Company Limited and four other German companies as equity partners. This partnership gave birth to a new company called Jayamkondam Lignite Power Corporation Limited. If at all, any one could be called the requisitioning body, it could either be TIDCO or at least Jayamkondam Lignite Power Corporation Limited. NLC was nowhere in the picture from the year 1993 till the year 2004. NLC came into picture to rescue the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as well as TIDCO, which got caught into a project that became a nonstarter. But they have now become the victim.

¶20

19.The State of Tamil Nadu, by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16/97 inserted Section 25A into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Section starts with a nonobstante clause. This Section makes the compensation awarded in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, payable by the party for whom the acquisition is made. The acquisition in this case was not made for the benefit of NLC. NLC was roped in to save the State Corporation as well as the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, in no way, the liability can be fastened upon them.

¶21

20.However, bringing our attention to two more amendments made by the State of Tamil Nadu, one to Section 19 and another to Section 20, Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel for TIDCO contended that the appellant was dragged into the picture only because of the hopes that they gave and the agreements that they have entered into from the year 2005 up to the year 2012 when they finally withdrew from the picture. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the stand taken by the appellant that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶22

21.We have carefully considered the above submissions. Under Section 19(1) of the Act, the State of Tamil Nadu inserted clause (bb), which made it mandatory for the impleadment of the third parties, if the acquisition was not for the Government. Similarly,

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

by the Amendment Act 14/90, clause (d) was inserted under Section 20 to enable the Court to serve notice upon all the parties for the benefit of whom, the acquisition was made. These amendments were necessitated in view of a controversy that was prevailing at that time as to whether the requisitioning body would have a right to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation at all.

¶25

22.But the fact that NLC was a necessary party, is different from the question as to whether they have any liability to pay the compensation or not. NLC was not the requisitioning body when the project was contemplated. It was roped in half way through when the joint venture floated by the Government failed and after Reliance Industries Limited backed out, after participating in the international competitive bidding. A person, who came to rescue the Government, cannot be made a victim. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be upheld.

¶26

23.In view of our finding that the appellant does not have any liability, the second question as to whether the quantum of compensation was correct or not is not answered by us.”

¶27

In view of the fact that the issues raised in these appeals are no more less integral. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is to be followed in respect of these appeals as cited supra. Accordingly, as far as the first appellant is concerned, the Judgment and decree passed by the Special Court, Jayamkondam in the following L.A.O.Ps are set aside:

¶28

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special Court No.	IN A.S.Nos
L.A.O.P.No.3990 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.375 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3992 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.376 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3993 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.377 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3994 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.378 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3997 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.379 of 2011

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special Court No.	IN A.S.Nos
L.A.O.P.No.3988 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.380 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3999 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.381 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4002 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.382 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4003 of 2008	19.10.2010	1	A.S.No.383 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3983 of 2008	20.10.2010	1	A.S.No.384 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3988 of 2008	20.01.2013	1	A.S.No.385 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.3989 of 2008	19.01.2013	1	A.S.No.386 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4004 of 2008	29.10.2010	1	A.S.No.387 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4005 of 2008	29.10.2010	1	A.S.No.388 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4008 of 2008	29.10.2010	1	A.S.No.389 of 2011
L.A.O.P.No.4010 of 2008	29.10.2013	1	A.S.No.390 of 2011

¶31

The first appellant in these First Appeals is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any deposited at the time of admission of the First Appeal along with the interest accrued in regard to first appellant alone. In other aspects, the judgment and decree of the Lower Court stand confirmed. Consequently, all the First Appeals stand allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Pkn

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

¶35

1.The Special Judge No.1, Jayamkondam.

¶36

2.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Jayamkondam Lignite Power Project, Jayamkondam.

¶37

3.The Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation(TIDCO) Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras. +2ccs to Mr. N.Nithianandam , Advocate SR.No. 101581 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 102612 A.S.Nos.375 to 390 of 2011

¶38

A.SK(03/11/2020)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Chairman Cum Managing v. Deivalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman Cum Managing v. Deivalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Parthasarathy Vs Sussela

The Chairman,Neyveli Lignite Vs Mr. Krishnamurthy

Karthikeyan Vs Datchinamoorthy

Union of India Vs Nadarajan

M/S Next Link P Ltd. Vs N.Ramachandran

E.Ramalingam Vs H.Sukumaran