N. MANOHARAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-251
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 12,2014

N. Manoharan Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents




JUDGEMENT

K.Ravichandra Babu, J. - (1.)W .P. No. 8497 of 2000 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.4.2000 in Letter No. 277/28/LA3(1)/98 -6 and consequently for a direction to the respondents to exclude the land in S. No. 388/C in Sithravuthanpalayam village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District from the land acquisition proceedings. Through the said impugned order dated 17.4.2000, the 1st respondent -State of Tamilnadu has rejected the request of the petitioners to exclude their land from the land acquisition proceedings. W.P. No. 8498 of 2000 is filed by the petitioners challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 737, dated 11.8.1982 by the 1st respondent and the subsequent declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, published in G.O.Ms. No. 552, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 03.6.1985 insofar it relates to S. No. 388/C in Sithravuthanpalayam village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.
(2.)SINCE the issue involved in W.P. No. 8498 of 2000 is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in : 2014 -2 -L.W. 430 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 (Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others) infavour of the petitioners, we take up W.P. No. 8498 of 2000 first for consideration and decision.
The petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act by raising very many grounds, including the ground that there was a delay of three years in passing declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the 3rd respondent has not at all obtained any sanction or approval from the competent authority as per Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, while passing the Award. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that though Award No. 4 of 1988 was passed on 25.8.1988, possession of the subject matter of the land is still with the petitioners and they have not been dispossessed at any point of time. It is the further contention of the petitioners that though Award was passed fixing the compensation of Rs. 29,446.80, the same has neither been deposited into the Civil Court nor paid to the petitioners. On the other hand, it is seen from the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer -cum -Administrative Officer, Erode Housing Board Section, Erode in Letter No.Ni.Kai. 2/51/3, dated 6.8.2014 to the Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the said amount was only handed over by way of Cheque to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) on 11.6.1987. It is also specifically admitted in the same communication that the possession of the land has not been taken from the hands of the petitioners as on 06.8.2014.

(3.)DURING the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners have filed W.P.M.P. Nos. 87 and 88 of 2014 in W.P. Nos. 8497 and 8498 of 2000 seeking for permission to raise additional grounds claiming benefit under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the said applications were also allowed by this Court on 18.7.2014.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.