N. BASKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to declare the notification issued under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No. 1497, Agriculture Department dated 19.8.88 and the notification issued under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No. 865, Agriculture Department dated 15.11.89 by the Government of Tamil Nadu as illegal, incompetent and lapsed in view of Section 11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are residing in a village called "Jagadab" and they are basically agriculturists and small farmers. Being aggrieved by the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 865 dated 15.11.89 that was published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act") and also came to be again published in "Dinakaran" Tamil daily on 7.12.89 seeking to acquire the lands belonging to them for expansion of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Research Centre, Paiyur in accordance with the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, they have filed the present writ petition. It was also submitted that on an earlier occasion, the petitioners were constrained to challenge the Section 4(1) notification on the ground that the lands sought to be acquired are agricultural and cultivable lands and they had not been properly shown or described either in the notification issued under Section 4 or in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the names of the pattadars and owners had not also been correctly shown. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9.9.99 accepting the stand of the respondents that they had followed the relevant procedure required for issuance of notification. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents should have passed the award within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. But no such steps were taken as per the mandatory conditions mentioned under Section 11 -A of the Act. When the lands of the petitioners were acquired and the respondents, as per Section 11 -A of the Act, neglected to pay even the compensation, it is a well settled legal position that the respondent -Government, having acquired the valuable land from the land owners, cannot withhold indefinitely the payment of compensation, as they should settle the compensation within two years from the date of declaration. It was further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer, who failed to pay the compensation within two years from the date of declaration, cannot proceed further with the acquisition, since the land acquisition proceeding will automatically get lapsed in view of Section 11 -A of the Act, and thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer becomes functus officio on the expiry of two years, that is after Section 6 declaration. On this basis, it was submitted that this Court should declare the impugned notifications issued by the respondents as illegal, incompetent and lapsed in view of Section 11 -A of the Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in C. Jayarama Reddy (died) and others v. The Land Acquisition Officer reported in : 1998 -I -MLJ 85, wherein this Court has held that since an award valid in the eye of law was not passed within the period prescribed, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse. In State of U.P. and others v. Rajiv Gupta and another, : (1994) 5 SCC 686, it was further held that the award passed without the approval of the authorities would mean that there was no award made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the eye of law and since Section 11 -A is mandatory in nature, on the expiry of two years from the date of declaration, the entire proceedings under the Act would lapse. On the same lines, one another judgment in Ravi Khullar and another v. Union of India and others, : AIR 2007 SC 2334 was also pressed into service.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent -Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Krishnagiri.

(3.) HEARD the submissions of the respective learned counsel and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners having an extent of 20.71.0 hectares in Survey No. 40/1 in Jagadab village in Krishnagiri District were sought to be acquired for expansion of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Research Centre, Paiyoor. The initiation of land acquisition proceeding is a scientific welfare scheme for conducting research in agriculture and for improvement of agricultural schemes in the State. On an earlier occasion, the very same petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3025 of 1990 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 865 dated 15.11.89 issued by the first respondent and also to quash all the proceedings in relation thereto including the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This Court, by giving a clear cut finding in the said order, concluded that the contention of the petitioners that no opportunity was given to them before acquiring the land was not correct, as could be seen from the materials available on record. One another finding of this Court, as seen from the order dated 9.9.99, also clearly shows that only after due service of publication of notice as contemplated under the Act, Section 5 -A enquiry was conducted by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 20.2.89. Further, it may be noted that all the pattadars and interested persons have appeared before the enquiry officer and raised their objections in writing. Thereafter, the objections were examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer and on proper consideration only, the objections were overruled by the Revenue Divisional Officer by giving his own reasons. In view of the above detailed reasons, when the writ petition of the petitioners to quash G.O.Ms. No. 865 dated 15.11.89 was negatived, the respondents, who are bound to pass the award within two years, have miserably failed to comply with the mandatory conditions mentioned under Section 11 -A of the Act. In this context, Section 11 -A of the Act can be extracted and the same reads as follows: -