IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 28-03-2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.6209 of 1999 1.K.Chengalvarayan 2.K.Sivakumar . . Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Trivellore. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Trivellore. . . Respondents The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for records in order No.R.C.No.734/98/A1/dated 12.03.1999 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mrs.Geetha Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent, the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare), Tiruvellore District, dated 12.03.1999 under which the second respondent after conducting award enquiry in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners in Survey No.705/2, Ellappanaidupet Village, Kunnavalam Post, Trivelore Taluk, Ramanjeri, measuring 0.68 Hectares were acquired for the Harijan Welfare Scheme under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Schemes Welfare Act, 1978. Notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was issued on 01.09.1998 and the petitioners sent their objections on 16.09.1998 within the time stipulated in the notice and thereafter, 4(1) notification was issued. After that for the purpose of conducting award enquiry, a notice was issued to the petitioners as per Rule 5(1) in Form III dated 15.02.1999 directing the petitioners and other connected persons to appear for an enquiry on 09.03.1999 at 11.00 a.m before the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The admitted case of the petitioners is that after receiving the notice for award enquiry dated 15.02.1999 they have also appeared on 09.03.1999 before the second respondent. However, the grievance is that on the date of enquiry, the second respondent did not conduct enquiry and there was no one to conduct enquiry and therefore the enquiry was not conducted. This has prompted the petitioners to file the present writ petition challenging the award dated 12.03.1999. Therefore, the only grievance of the petitioners in this case is that there was no award enquiry conducted on 09.03.1999 so as to enable the petitioners to put forth their claim regarding the value of land acquired. 3. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that Form III as per Rule 5(1) was served on the petitioners and other owners including T.Chandrasekaran. However one C.Venkatesan, who is one of the owners, has not received the notice in respect of whom a copy of Form I notice was displaced in public and signature of the public were obtained as per the procedure. It is the case of the respondents that T.Chandrasekaran, who is the adjacent owner of the land, has presented the objection petition through his son namely Kumaran Chandrasekaran on 09.03.1999 when the enquiry was conducted by the second respondent. In fact, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the said Kumaran Chandrasekaran has stated in the enquiry that he does not know the extent of land acquired in respect of Survey No.705/1B. Since the other owners including the petitioners have not appeared, the second respondent has taken note of the objections filed by the petitioners pursuant to the notice given under Section 4(2) during the time of enquiry on 09.03.1999 and passed appropriate proceedings and sent it to the Collector. After, the completion of the award enquiry, the draft award was prepared and sent to District Revenue Officer, Thiruvellore and ultimately the award pronounced on 12.03.1999. Notice was sent to the owners for receiving the compensation. It is also stated that the possession has already been taken in respect of the acquired lands. It is reiterated that on 09.03.1999 the second respondent has conducted award enquiry and the petitioners having received the notice were not present. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the date fixed for enquiry i.e. 09.03.1999 in fact the petitioners had appeared through their counsel and given a petition for the purpose of intimating the next date of hearing and according to him, the said document itself is sufficient to state that on that date no enquiry was conducted. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced entire files relating to the award enquiry and submitted that the proceedings of the land acquisition officer who has conducted enquriy on 09.03.1999 clearly shows that the enquiry was in fact conducted on 09.03.1999 and the petitioners have not appeared for enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader and also perused the entire records including the relevant portions of the file. 6. The proceedings of the land acquisition officer dated 09.03.1999 which is in the file produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader show that on the said date of enquiry dated 09.03.1999 another adjacent owner namely T.Chandrasekaran represented through his son namely C.Kumaran Chandrasekaran has given a statement and therefore the averment made by the petitioners in the petition as if on 09.03.1999 there was no enquiry is not sustainable. A reference to the petition stated to have been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners before the land acquisition officer shows that the counsel has appeared before land acquisition officer at 01.00 p.m. and he was informed that the land acquisition officer was called urgently to Secretariat and left to Chennai short while ago. Even though, the allegation that the second respondent was not present is denied in the counter affidavit, it is stated on 09.03.1999 the second respondent in fact conducted an enquiry as it is also seen in the files placed before this Court. It is seen in the notice dated 15.02.1999 issued in Form III as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules framed under 31 of Act 1978 that the second respondent has stated that the award enquiry will be conducted on 09.03.1999 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Thiruvellore. A copy of the petition stated to have been presented by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the Special Tahsildar office makes it very clear that he has appeared only at 01.00 p.m. Therefore, it cannot be said merely because the petitioners counsel was present at 01.00 p.m. on 09.03.1999, there was no enquiry on that day at all. As per notice issued in Form III which stipulated that the time of enquiry is 11.00 a.m. admittedly the petitioner's counsel has not appeared at the stipulated time i.e. 11.00 a.m. It is not open to the petitioners now to state as if no enquiry was conducted, on the perusal of the records, I am able to find that enquiry was conducted on 09.03.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage would submit that in respect of all lands relating to Ramanjeri which were acquired, the Government has subsequently passed many orders accepting the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.750/- per cent. A reference to the Government orders produced show that they are relating to the persons who have filed LAOP. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Government will be applicable to the petitioners also. Inasmuch as, the petitioners have not approached the Court as per Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Act 1978 read with Rule 6 framed thereunder. It is seen that the award enquiry was completed on 09.03.1999 and ultimately award came to be passed on 12.03.1999. The writ petitioners have filed the present petition on 05.04.1999 and there has been interim stay regarding dispossession. As per Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 as against the amount of award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ determined by the prescribed authority under Section 7(3) of the Act, the petitioners can file appeal within the period as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes, Rules 1979 which reads as follows; "6. Appeal against order of amount determined:- Any person, who does not agree to the amount determined by the prescribed authority under Sub- Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, may prefer an appeal to the Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the prescribed authority." 7. In the present case between the award passed by the authority which was on 12.03.1999 and the date of filing of writ petition dated 05.04.1999, the period is within six weeks and thereafter the writ petition has been pending before this Court. In view of the same, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners are permitted to approach the Court by filing appeal as per Section 9 of the Act for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. In the event of the petitioners filing such appeal to the Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Court shall receive the said appeal and pass appropriate judgments in accordance with law after affording opportunities to the parties. 8. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jikr To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur. 2.The Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravida Welfare) Tiruvallur. 1 cc To Mr.R.Selvakumar, Advocate, SR.17597. W.P.NO.6209 of 1999 KA(CO) RVL 15.04.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/