C. RAVI SUBRAMANYAM Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-359
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 08,2017

C. Ravi Subramanyam Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents




JUDGEMENT

N.SESHASAYEE,J. - (1.)These triple appeals are preferred against the orders of the Single Judge in three writ petitions, filed separately by the appellants herein, all of who are brothers, for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the appellants as being contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, (henceforth Right to Fair Compensation Act for the sake brevity and convenience) and to further direct the respondents to pay compensation to them in terms of the said Act. This was negatived by the learned Single Judge. This order is in challenge in these appeals.
(2.)The minimum facts necessary for the current purpose may be succinctly stated: The appellants herein are brothers and possessed lands in different survey fields in Block 7 of the Minjur village. The details thereof are tabulated: JUDGEMENT_359_LAWS(MAD)11_2017_1.html
(3.)1. While so, for the formation of Outer Ring Road, vast stretches of lands were sought to be acquired by the State under its powers of eminent domain and in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 04-07-2012, a draft notification under Sec.4(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act about the proposed acquisition was published as per G.O.Ms 148, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.7.2012, followed by necessary public notice through newspapers. This was followed by preliminary enquiry conducted by the second respondent under Sec.5A of the Act. The final declaration of the intended acquisition under Sec.6 was made dated 07-07- 2013. Thereafter, proceedings for passing the award under Sec.11 of the Act commenced. 3. 2. On 06-01-2014, each of the appellants received separate communication from the second respondent where under the appellants were informed of the passing of the award. In the meantime, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force from 01-01-2014. In their respective affidavits filed in aid of the writ petitions the appellants suspected that the awards have been passed ante-dated post advent of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, and consequently valid, and awards should be passed in terms of Sec.24(1) of the subsequent Act, implying thereby, in terms of the new Act.
;


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