Partly allowed

G.Lakshmipathy v. The Collector of Thiruvallur District.

Madras HC20 Jun 2023WP/5973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed multiple writ petitions partially, setting aside illegally deducted 33.33% development charges. The court directed respondents to recalculate land compensation under the Central Land Acquisition Act, 2013, with interest within twelve weeks, avoiding quashing of an already implemented public welfare project.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of 33.33% development charges set aside; compensation to be recalculated under Central Act 30 of 2013 with interest within 12 weeks.

G.Lakshmipathy Vs The Collector of Thiruvallur District. — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20-06-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021 And

¶7

WMP Nos.6638, 6631,6627, 6623, 6723, 7249, 7255, 7333, 7356, 7396, 7524, 7531, 7729, 7732, 8022, 8032, 8027, 8062, 8063, 8065, 8172, 8174

¶8

and 8265 of 2021 and MP Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2009

¶9

WP No.5973 of 2021:

¶10

G.Lakshmipathy ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Collector of Thiruvallur District, Office of the Collector of Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur.

¶13

Page 1 of 12

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶16

2.The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Metropolitan Division, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

¶17

3.The Special District Revenue Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, State Highways Department, Metropolitan Division, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

¶18

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, Chennai-56.

¶19

5.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to passing of the Award No.5/2020 dated 31.12.2020, pertaining to Serial No.42, in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1704/2010/Aa 1 dated 31.12.2010, issued as against the petitioner in respect of the property of the petitioner, comprised in Survey No.1357/6B land together with building of an extent of 46 square meters,

¶22

Page 2 of 12

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶25

situated in Door No.749, Trunk Road, Poonamallee, Trunk Road Poonamallee, Poonamallee Taluk and Thiruvallur District and quash the same and also incidentally nullify the entire previous notices issued by the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in this regard and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect fo the aforesaid property.

¶26

For Petitioner in WPs.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096, 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540 and 7655/2021 : Mr.A.Palaniappan

¶27

For Petitioner in WP 7714/2021 : Mr.A.Palaniappan for Ms.P.K.Vasuki

¶28

For Respondents in all WPs : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader.

¶29

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶30

All the above writ petitions are filed questioning the Award passed on 31.12.2020 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The validity of the acquisition need not be gone into on account of the fact that the Project has already been implemented and halfway through.

¶31

Page 3 of 12

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶34

The petitioners have raised several grounds questioning the

¶35

validity of the acquisition and the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the deduction of 33.33% on the head of development charges is perverse and more-so the petitioners are entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the New Act i.e., Central Act No.30 of 2013.

¶36

In view of the fact that the Project has already been commenced and the Authorities are in the process of implementation in entirety, it may not be required for this Court to go into those grounds raised for quashing the acquisition proceedings. Such Public Welfare Projects, already commenced, need not be stalled and in such circumstances, the aggrieved persons are suitably compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners also made a submission that the petitioners have no objection for implementing the Scheme for the welfare of the public at large and they are requesting the Page 4 of 12

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

lost.

¶40

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶41

Authorities to pay just compensation for the valuable lands, which they have lost.

¶42

The property right of citizen is the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No doubt, such right can be taken away by the Authority of Law. However, the Government must ensure that the landlosers are paid just compensation and in commensuration to the value of the land they lost. Thus Courts are also have to consider the principles for grant of just compensation.

¶43

The object of the provisions of the 2019 Act, has been considered by the Apex Court of India in the case of G. Mohan Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2022) 12 SCC 696] , wherein it has been held that “to tide over the situation, the Government have decided to revive the aforesaid three Tamil Nadu Acts and to apply the provisions relating to the determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and infrastructure amenities as in the Central Act 30 of 2013 to the land acquisitions made under the Tamil Nadu Acts and to validate the action

¶44

Page 5 of 12

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶47

already taken under the said Acts and accordingly, the Government have decided to undertake legislation for the abovesaid purpose”.

¶48

Pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court of India, cited supra, the Government of Tamil Nadu also validated the repealed Acts and ensured that the landlosers will get compensation under the New Act i.e., Central Act 30 of 2013.

¶49

In the present cases, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2011 and the Award was passed on 31.12.2020. Moreso, the subject lands were acquired for expansion of State Highways and therefore, the development charges proposed to be recovered from the landlosers are unjustifiable. The development charges are required to be recovered only if there is a scope for such developments and in respect of all the existing roads, expansion cannot be considered as developments of such roads are already there and the adjacent lands are required for expansion of the roads.

¶50

Page 6 of 12

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶53

These facts are not in dispute between the parties and thus

¶54

this Court has no hesitation in forming an opinion that the development charges of 33.33% deducted from the landlosers are not in consonance with the principles and also the charges recovered are not required for the purpose of developments.

¶55

In this aspect, it is relevant to extract paragraph-10 of the judgment of the Apex Court of India in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna

¶56

vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506 ,

¶57

wherein in paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:-

¶58

“10. This Court has in a recent decision in

¶59

Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam vs. Smt A. Mangala Gowri [(1991) 4 SCC 218 : (1991) 2 Scale 301] , following Tribeni Devi case [(1972) 1 SCC 480 : AIR 1972 SC 1417 : (1972) 3 SCR 208] pointed out as under: (SCC p. 223 b-d)

¶60

“It is to be noted that in

¶61

building regulations, setting apart the

¶62

Page 7 of 12

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶65

lands for development of roads, drainage and other amenities like electricity etc. are condition precedent to approve layout for building colonies. Therefore, based upon the situation of the land and the need for development the deduction shall be made. Where acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 1/3 would not be justified. In the rural areas housing schemes relating to weaker sections deduction of 1/4 may be justified.”

¶66

Thus the development charges deducted are untenable and it is beyond the scope of purpose for which it is recovered.

¶67

As far as the determination of compensation is concerned,

¶68

undoubtedly, it is to be determined based on the New Act, i.e., Central Act 30 of 2013. In respect of all other criterias, the petitioners have no serious

¶69

Page 8 of 12

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶72

objections and more-so, they have no further objections with reference to the grounds raised for quashing the acquisition proceedings.

¶73

In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:-

¶74

(1) The recovery of development charges of 33.33% deducted from the landlosers-petitioners are set aside.

¶75

(2) The compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, i.e., Central Act 30 of 2013. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-calculate the compensation as applicable to the respective petitioners and settle the compensation along with the admissible interest under the Act, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If at all the petitioners aggrieved from and out of the compensation determined by the Authorities, their cases are to be referred under Section 20 of the Act for determining the enhancement

¶76

or otherwise by the appropriate Court of Law.

¶77

Page 9 of 12

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶80

With the above directions, all the writ petitions are allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶81

20-06-2023

¶82

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶83

Page 10 of 12

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶86

¶87

1.The Collector of Thiruvallur District, Office of the Collector of Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur.

¶88

2.The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Metropolitan Division, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

¶89

3.The Special District Revenue Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, State Highways Department, Metropolitan Division, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

¶90

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, Chennai-56.

¶91

5.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶92

Page 11 of 12

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096 6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶95

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶96

Svn

¶97

WP Nos.5973, 5986, 5983, 5977 of 2021, 8371 to 8377 of 2009, 6096,6699, 6703, 6780, 6798, 6837, 6981, 6983, 7226, 7228, 7506, 7513, 7509, 7534, 7537, 7540, 7655 and 7714 of 2021

¶98

20-06-2023

¶99

Page 12 of 12

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Lakshmipathy v. The Collector of Thiruvallur District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Lakshmipathy v. The Collector of Thiruvallur District.

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

M.Ganesh Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

G.Krishnamoorthy Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Wellington Cantonment Board Vs Union of India

E.Ganesan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

P.Kuppuswamy Vs Chandra

K.N.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer