1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD).No.5907 of 2011 Alagarsamy ...Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai - 625 002. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, South Neighbourhood Scheme (Unit), Old Ramnad Collectorate, Madurai-20. 3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), South Neighbourhood Scheme (Unit), Old Ramnad Collectorate, Madurai-20. 4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to refer the award No.7/1994 dated 25.02.1994 in respect of the land measuring an extent of two acres on the southern side of out of an vast extent of properties measuring 52 acres 3 cent comprised in Survey Nos.94/1B, 94/1C, 94/1D, 94/1E and 94/1F in Uchapatti Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Civil Court. For petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj Govt.Advocate ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to refer the Award No. 7/1994 dated 25.02.1994 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to the competent Civil Court and pass suitable orders. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was originally not served with award copy and when he sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, as per his representation dated 18.01.2011, in spite of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the said representation, the matter has not been referred to under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 3.At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked that even as per the Advocate's Notice dated 14.11.2006 issued on behalf of the petitioner, it is specifically claimed that they were aware about the land acquisition proceedings, however they only require that the award amount has not been paid to the petitioner. In the said Advocate's notice, it is also specifically stated that if the award amount is not paid within fifteen days, the respondents will be liable for consequences, for which a reply was given by the respondents on 04.12.2006. Subsequently, in the representation dated 18.01.2011, he has categorically stated that he has received the award amount with an objection. Under the guise of representation, now he seeks to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. Unfortunately, the petitioner who has availed all legal help, now he is trying to invoke Section 18 of the Act that too in respect of the award of the year 1994. Whereas, earlier his only grievance was the amount was not paid and the same was received subsequently. After receiving the amount, he now makes a representation and to refer the matter under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. As per Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court. As per Clause (2)(a), it is to be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award and as per Clause (2)(b), within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, Sub- section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's Award, whichever shall first expire. Such is not the position in the case on hand. 5. Unfortunately, earlier the petitioner even though issued a lawyer notice seeking for the award amount, after a quite long time from the date of acquisition and an award being passed, now at this length of time, he wants the matter to be referred to under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that too, after getting his award amount subsequent to his lawyer notice, which under law cannot be permitted. Therefore, the petitioner's representation cannot be considered at all and it is liable to be dismissed. In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, wherein it has been culled out when Mandamus is to be given and on what occasions the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations leads to drastic consequences. Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to1.75" "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large- scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 6. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court, in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, had in para 8 observed:- “.... 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine as it is not maintainable. ssm Sd/- Deputy Registrar[Accounts] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, South Neighbourhood Scheme (Unit), Old Ramnad Collectorate, Madurai-20. 3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), South Neighbourhood Scheme (Unit), Old Ramnad Collectorate, Madurai-20. 4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. +1 cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate SR.No.19883. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, Advocate SR.No.20042. W.P(MD).No.5907 of 2011 Dated:23.06.2011 4P/7C RPB 06.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/