D. Ravisankar, D. Prabusankar rep. by Power Agent D. Ravisankar and C.D.R. Chidambaram Vs The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA. V) Department, The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Commissioner

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Vinod K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the acquisition proceedings relating to G.O.Ms. No. 50 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.V) Department dated 20.04.2005, as well as the Notification issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the award dated 17.04.2007.

2. The case pleaded by the Petitioner, is that his grand father along with his sons conveyed an area measuring 4750 sq. yards in 1957, to the fourth Respondent for municipal bus stand. The fourth Respondent / Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality thereafter demanded more area, on request, another 444 sq. yards was conveyed in the year 1959.

3. The municipal Committee, in violation of conveyance in their favour, encroached larger area, than the one assigned, for which the Petitioner had taken steps to get eviction order.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner, that in view of the action taken against the fourth Respondent, the proceedings were initiated to acquire the land of the Petitioner. The Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government on 25.02.1994, which was followed by the Notification u/s 6 of the Act on 16.05.1995. The proceedings of acquisition were under challenge before this Court in W.P. Nos. 16033 of 1995, 13436 of 1996 and 12563 of 1997, the Notifications were quashed, by this Court by allowing the writ petitions.

5. After quashing of the Notification, the Government, again issued a Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was followed by Notification u/s 6 of the Act, and finally the Award dated 17.04.2007 stands passed.

6. The prayer of the Petitioner, is that the acquisition proceedings right from the stage of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are liable to be quashed for the reasons, that issuance of Notification in the District Gazette is illegal and contrary to law, being in violation of the statutory provisions as according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the substance of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is required to be published in the official Gazette, and not in the District Gazette.

7. The other ground is that the costs of land was assessed by the Collector at Rs. 59,24,194/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four only), therefore, the Collector was not competent to issue the Notice u/s 4(1) of the Act.

8. The Petitioner also submits that there is violation in publication of the substance of Notification in the local newspaper, by pleading that it was not done within the statutory period.

9. The Petitioner also claims, that there was violation of principle of natural justice, in dealing with the objections filed u/s 5A of the Act.

10. The writ is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader on the ground of its maintainability, after passing of the Award.

11. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the Petitioner was given full opportunity while deciding objections u/s 5A of the Act, and it was only after hearing the objections of the Petitioner, that the Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued.

12. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent, that notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, exercising the power of the District Collector, and in spite of the Notice, the Petitioner failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner to now challenge the acquisition proceedings after passing of the Award.

13. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Waste Products Reclaimor Private Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that non publication of the Notification in Official Gazette is a technical objection, which stands defeated by laches.

14. The learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramalingam and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under:

3. In these appeals, the facts are that the Award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 07.11.1996 whereas the writ petitions were filed on 28.11.1996, i.e., after the award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that No. writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed -Vide Tej Kaur and Others, etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .; The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, ; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, U.P. Vs. Suresha Nand Juyal alias Musa Ram (Deceased) by LR''s and others, ; and State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnar, (1996) 1 SCC 250 . Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. Connected WAMP Nos. 1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed.

15. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chinnammal, A.V. Damodaran, Devendran and V. Krishnaswamy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held as under:

It is trite law that once an award is passed, it is not open to the parties to approach this Court to challenge the violations in the procedure adopted in passing the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the resultant declaration u/s 6 of the Act. Therefore, in law the Petitioners are barred from challenging the alleged irregularities said to have been committed prior to the passing of the Award. Another question for consideration is as to whether the Petitioners can be permitted to raise the additional grounds at the time of hearing the writ petitions? The Petitioners have raised three contentions in the additional grounds such as non-application of mind while passing the order u/s 5A of the Act, not obtaining the prior approval before the issuance of the Notification and not obtaining the prior approval before passing the award. In the opinion of this Court, it is not quite open to the Petitioners to raise all these contentions for the first time. By raising these contentions, the Petitioners are trying to get over the delay, laches and acquiescence on their part.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable in law and facts for having approached this Court much after the passing of the award which they were quite aware of and raising the additional grounds at the time of hearing the Writ Petitions cannot be permitted. It is pertinent to note that the Writ Petitions have been filed in the year 2001 and 2003 respectively. Applications have been filed by the Respondents for vacating the interim stay in the year 2004. Thereafter, they have filed Applications for fixing early dates for the disposal of the Writ Petitions. This Court has fixed the date in the year 2007 after a period of six weeks. There is absolutely No. explanation from the Petitioners for not filing any Application for additional grounds till that point of time. The Petitioners cannot be permitted to conduct a roving enquiry in a proceeding initiated under the Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.

16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended, that the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Award passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is non est and void and therefore, cannot be said to be an Award in the eye of law, to bar the maintainability of writ petition, to challenge the acquisition proceedings, at this stage.

17. In support of the contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, to contend, that the Award passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction, as the competence to pass an award is that of the Collector or a person notified by the Government. In the absence of a Notification/Authorization, it cannot be said, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to pass an award.

18. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Award is non est, as it was pre-requisite for the Revenue Divisional Officer/Collector to get an approval of the State Government, or persons so authorized before making of an Award. But, in this case, No. such approval was

19. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajiv Gupta and Another, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that prior approval of the appropriate Government is necessary for making the Award, as in terms of Section 11 of the Act, No. award can be made without prior approval of the Government or its authorised officer, and any violation of such requirement renders the Award null and void and illegal.

20. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that once an Award is held to be null and void, then it will be No. Award, in the eye of law, and therefore, the writ petition to challenge the acquisition will be maintainable.

21. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, is, that in this case, the Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act cannot be sustained, as the substance of the Notification was not published in the official Gazette, but only in the District Gazette, thus, it is not a valid Notification.

22. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended, that in view of the land value having been fixed as Rs. 59,24,194/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four only), the Notification could only be issued by the State Government, whereas the Notification in this case was issued by the Collector, which renders the Notification u/s 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to be invalid, and the petition deserves to be succeed, by quashing the Notifications and the Proceedings.

23. There can be No. dispute with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Notification issued u/s 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act could be set aside on the grounds taken in writ petition, in case there were challenge in time i.e., before passing of the award.

24. The question to be decided in this case is, whether the Petitioner can question the acquisition proceedings after passing of the Award, in view of the authoritative pronouncement by this Court in the case of Ramalingam And Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (supra) and Chinnammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu (supra).

25. This only question to be decided is whether the Award is null and void, for want of prior approval by the competent authority, to hold that there exists No. award, so as to adjudicate the contentions raised on merit. The answer to this question is in negative, for the reasons hereinafter stated.

26. On 12.05.2005, the Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar has passed the following order:

ORDER

1. Where as the Government of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that the land specified in the schedule attached have to be acquired for public purpose and a declaration u/s 6 of the land acquisition act 1894 (Central Act of 1894) has already been published on 26.02.2004 in the localities.

2. And where as the under Clause (1) of Section 3 of the said Act the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi has already been appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under said Act in the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) published at pages 3 -4, of Virudhunagar District Gazette No. 2, dated 09.06.2004.

3. And where as in the Revenue Department, Notification No. 11(2) Revenue 3777/94, dated 05.09.94 published at Page 916 of Part II Section 207 the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23.09.94 all the District Collectors have been authorised to issue direction u/s 7 of the said Act.

Direction

Now, therefore, by virtue of the Authorisation of the Government u/s 7 of the Act, the Collector of Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar hereby directs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi to the lands specified in the schdule attached and measuring 2080 sq.m which is 12 needed for a public purpose, for the extention of Sivakasi Bus Stand, shall be acquired for the said purpose and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi is appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the said Act.

Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.

27. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi has No. jurisdiction to pass an Award deserves to be rejected. The valuation of the land was done and vide order dated 22.03.2007, and the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 17,68,460/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Eight thousand Four Hundred and Sixty only). The jurisdiction of the Collector to issue the Notification for want of pecuniary jurisdiction also cannot be questioned.

28. The Draft Award stood approved by the Collector, Virudhunagar District. It was only after approval by the District Collector, that the Award was passed by the competent authority.

29. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Award is null and void thus non est, cannot be accepted.

30. Once the validity of the Award is upheld, the writ petition to challenge the land acquisition proceedings, is not competent, in view of the settled law, that it is not open to the party, to challenge the acquisition proceedings, after passing of the Award.

31. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007 is closed.