IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.16849 of 2009 1.Mehul H.Doshi 2.Naresh Jain .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Outer Ring Road Scheme Taluk Office, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to refer the application, dated 15.10.2008 to a Court of competent jurisdiction so as to enable the court to enter a reference for re-determining the compensation amount for the lands situate at Survey No.166/15A2 of Karapakkam Village measuring about 463 Sq.ft. For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, AGP ORDER The petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the second respondent District Collector, Kancheepuram District to refer the application dated 15.10.2008 to a Court of competent jurisdiction to enter a reference for re-determining the compensation amount for the lands situated in Survey No.166/15A2 of Karapakkam Village measuring about 463 sq.ft and to pass suitable Award. 2.When the writ petition came up for hearing on 9.9.2009, this court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce records to show whether the petitioner has been served with the Award copy. After perusing the records, it was found that one Sampath appeared before the authorised officer before passing the Award and made objections in the proceedings. The signature of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said Sampath was found in Tamil. An award copy was also served on the said Sampath, which shows that the said Sampath signed in English. Therefore, a doubt has arisen whether the Award copy was ever served on the agent of the petitioner, i.e. Sampath. Therefore, the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 14.10.2009 was filed. 3.It is seen from the records that the petitioners' land along with others were notified under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for widening the Old Mahabalipuram Road. An Award enquiry was conducted by the second respondent on 20.10.2005 and 03.11.2005. During the Award proceedings conducted in the Collectorate, one Sampath appeared on behalf of the petitioners and gave statement, demanding that they should be paid Rs.6,00,000/- per cent in lieu of the amount fixed by the Collectorate at the rate of 277/- per sq.ft. No document evidence was produced for enhanced claim. Subsequently, on the basis of the available document, an Award was passed in 31.3.2006. As per the Award, compensation was to be paid for a sum of Rs.1,27,956/- in respect of the survey number owned by the petitioners. 4.At the time of passing of the Award, notice under Sections 19(3) and 19(6) of the Tamil nadu Highways Act was issued to the petitioners asking them to receive the compensation amount. That notice was also served on the said Sampath on 23.4.2006. The petitioners did not receive the compensation amount within the stipulated time and no representation was received from them. Hence, the amount of compensation was directed to be kept in revenue deposit. This fact was also informed to the petitioners on 5.4.2007. After the receipt of the letter, the petitioners sent a petition, dated 14.4.2008 to the Special Tahsildar i.e. first respondent, asking to refund the compensation amount equally in the name of the two petitioners. The compensation was drawn from the revenue deposit through Treasury by means of two separate cheques dated 13.10.2008 drawn in the name of two petitioners. The petitioners never appeared before the Collectorate for handing over the original documents and to receive the cheques. Only on 15.10.2008, the petitioners sent a letter to the first respondent and to the District Collector requesting them to refer the matter under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for re-determining the compensation amount. 5.Under Section 20 of the Act, a person aggrieved by the Award will have to file a petition to the District Collector within 60 days from the date of the Award requiring him to refer the matter for re-determination of compensation. For this purpose, the provisions of Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply if any application is made. Therefore, from the relevant provision, i.e. Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is made clear that the application for enhanced compensation should state the ground on which objection to the Award is taken and that it should be made within six weeks from the date of Collector's Award or if it was represented before the Collector at the time when the Award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was made or in other cases, six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of Collector's Award whichever period first expired. Further, it should also indicate the exact amount required to be enhanced. Since in the present case, the Award was passed on 31.3.2006 and the date of service of notice under Sections 19(3) and 19(6) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act was on 23.4.2006 and that the petition for enhanced compensation was filed only on 15.10.2008, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed. 6.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the date of knowledge which is relevant under Section 18 for calculating the limitation. In this context, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum reported in (1964) 1 SCR 971 = AIR 1963 SC 1604. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "6....It seems clear, to us that the ratio of the decision in Raja Harish Chandra case (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Looked at from that point of view, we do not think that it can be inferred from the petition dated December 24, 1954 that the respondents had knowledge of the award....." 7.He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam and others reported in MANU/SC/1329/2009. In paragraph 92, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "92.In a case of this nature, in the absence of any material brought on record by the State and/or the appellant, we may assume that the Land Acquisition Officer is a Collector within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act. He was, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, bound by his promise. In the aforementioned situation, it would not be a case where a statutory authority has been asked by a higher authority to perform his jurisdiction in a particular manner. No form of protest, as indicated hereinbefore, is prescribed under the Act. No form of application in writing has also been prescribed. In a given case, keeping in view the object and purport the statute seeks to achieve, a Collector being a statutory authority and having the jurisdiction to make a reference can waive the same. We may consider it from another angle. Had a reference been made pursuant to the request made by the awardees, could it be held to be wholly illegal or without jurisdiction only because the protest made in regard to the quantum of compensation under the award is oral and not in writing? The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. The form, mode and manner of protest are procedural in nature. The statute does not provide for a thing to be done in a particular manner." 8.There is no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But, in the present case, there is no attempt made by the petitioner to send their objections in terms of the provisions of the Act, which are relevant especially when they had knowledge of the Award which was served on their agent. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To 1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Outer Ring Road Scheme Taluk Office, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.28571 ORDER IN W.P.NO.16849 of 2009 RV {CO} TP/4.5.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/