IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.03.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Writ Petition No.26357 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 1. V.Kumarasamy 2. M.Rangasamy 3. V.Palanichamy 4. Mrs.A.Rukmani 5. P.Kandasamy 6. P.Chellakutti 7. P.Ayyasamy 8. C.Subbulakshmi 9. C.Marudachalam 10.A.Arumugam 11.K.Rangasamy 12.K.Marudachalam 13.Mani (Petitioners 1 to 13 represented by Power of Attorney Agents) 1. A.Dandapani 2. G.Kumarasamy 3. Shanmugam 14.K.Govindasamy 15.S.Aruljothi 16.S.Vijay Anandan 17.Velmurugan (Petitioners 14 to 17 represented by Power of Attorney Agents) 1. A.Ganesan 2. G.Kumarasamy 3. C.Shanmugam 18.V.Prabakumaran 19.S.Logesan 20.T.R.Moorthi 21.P.Chandrasekar 22.K.Selvamani 23.P.Ravichandran 24.R.Kumaravel 25.S.Sikappi 26.S.Vellingeri 27.J.Subramani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28.G.Sankaravadivu 29.R.Muralidhran 30.S.V.Subramanyam 31.R.Vijayamravi 32.S.Kannan 33.N.Devendran 34.G.Kalpana .. Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit II, Coimbatore – 12. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit - I, Coimbatore – 12. 4. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit-III, Coimbatore - 12. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.No.LA.63/88 dated 23.11.2009 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the petitioners lands in SF.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C, 152/3, 150/3E and 150/3F situated in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District, and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.N.Amarnath For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, Government Advocate ORDER By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.No.LA.63/88 dated 23.11.2009 issued under Section 9(3) and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the petitioners lands in SF.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C, 152/3, 150/3E and 150/3F situated in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District. 3.1. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C and 152/3 situated in Vilankurichi village, Coimbatore Taluk and District, is owned and possessed by one Mr.Velappa Gounder and the petitioners 1 to 13 are the legal heirs of the said Velappa Gounder. The property comprise in S.F.Nos.150/3E and 150/3F in the said village is owned and possessed by the petitioners 14 to 17. 3.2. The first respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') in G.O.No.496, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.11.1996 in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners 1 to 13 and 14 to 17 respectively. Section 6 declaration came to be issued by the first respondent in G.O.No.439, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 22.12.1997. In respect of the lands in S.F.Nos.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 150/3H, 152/1C and 152/3 at the time of 4(1) notification, the original owner, viz., Velappa Gounder was not alive, but the notification was issued in the name of the said deceased Valappa Gounder. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the name of the legal heirs of the said Velappa Gounder, who are the petitioners 1 to 13 herein. In respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3F, the 4(1) notification was issued in the name of the Velappa Gounder and the declaration under Section 6 came to be issued in the name of the petitioners 14 to 16, who are the persons purchased the property from the legal heirs of the original owner Velappa Gounder. In respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3E, 4(1) notification came to be issued in the name of Kandasamy who is the father of the 17th petitioner and Section 6 declaration came to be issued in the name of the 17th petitioner. 3.3. The petitioners 1 to 13 challenged the above said land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.1698 of 1998 and the petitioners 14 to 17 in W.P.No.1697 of 1998. This Court passed a common interim order dated 06.02.1998 in W.M.P.No.2429 and 2431 of 1998 in W.P.Nos.1698 and 1697 of 1998 and the writ petitions ultimately dismissed by this Court by order dated 04.01.2008. 3.4. After the dismissal of the said writ petitions, the award ought to have been passed by the respondents on or before 22.11.2009, but the third respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act for conducting enquiry for passing award and as such, the said notice was issued after the stipulated period of two years under Section 11 of the Act. 3.5. The first respondent authorized only the fourth respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 3 (c) of the Act, but the notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners by the third respondent. Being aggrieved against the said notice, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer. 4. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, made two fold contentions, viz., (i) the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 issued by the third respondent herein is liable to be set aside on the ground that the first respondent authorized only the fourth respondent to initiate the land acquisition proceedings under Section 3(c) of the Act, but the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued against the petitioners by the third respondent ; and (ii) the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1697 and 1698 of 1998 were dismissed on 04.01.2008 and as such, the award ought to have been passed by the respondent on or before 22.11.2009, i.e., out of two years for passing award from the date of declaration, there was no stay of any proceedings under Section 6 of the Act from 26.12.1997 to 6.2.1998, viz., for 42 days and after the dismissal of the said writ petitions on 4.1.2008, excluding the period of pendency of the writ petition, i.e., from 06.02.1998 to 04.01.2008, the remaining period available for the respondent is only 1 year, 10 months and 19 days, and as such, the entire land acquisition proceedings is liable to be quashed in view of the lapse of the statutory period of two years from the date of declaration. 5. Heard Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 and other materials available on record. 7. The fact remains that the petitioners 1 to 13 and 14 to 17 are the absolute owners of their respective properties under the Survey numbers as stated above. It is seen that Section 4(1) notification was issued in respect of the properties of the petitioners on 14.11.1996 and Section 6 declaration, as per the Act, was made by the first respondent on 22.12.1997 and the local publication was made on 26.12.1997. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners 1 to 13 and 14 to 17 filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.1697 and 1698 of 1998 and both the petitions have been ultimately, dismissed by this Court on 4.1.2008 and there was no stay of any proceedings u/s 6 of the Act from 26.12.1997 to 6.2.1998, viz., for 42 days. Therefore, after the dismissal of the said writ petitions, i.e., from 4.1.2008, excluding the period of pendency of the writ petition, i.e., from 6.2.1998 to 4.1.2008, the remaining period available for the respondent is only 1 year, 10 months and 19 days for passing the award which falls on or before 22.11.2009. 8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that till date, the award was not passed by the authorities concerned and as such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the properties of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners is liable to be quashed on the basis of the expiry of the statutory period of two years from the date of receipt of declaration. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others V. Rajiv Gupta reported in 1994 (5) SCC 686, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as hereunder : "A bare reading of Section 11-A indicates and emphasises the limitation within which the award should be made and has been statutorily determined, namely, the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. It is, therefore, a mandatory duty cast on the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award strictly in accordance with the limitation under Section 11-A. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In other words, on expiry of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration unless the proviso is attracted, if no award is made in the meantime, in the eye of law the proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act culminated in the declaration made under Section 6 shall stand lapsed and no proceedings, in the eye of law thereafter do exist, to take further action." The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also admittedly, no award has been passed till date after the lapse of statutory period of two years and therefore, on this sole ground, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 10. Yet another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the impugned notice dated 23.12.2009 for conducting award enquiry was issued only by the third respondent herein, whereas, only the fourth respondent is authorized by the first respondent to conduct the proceedings and as such, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. It is seen from the materials produced before this Court that the first respondent has authorised only the fourth respondent, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit III, Coimbatore, whereas, the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued only by the third respondent, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit I, Coimbatore. 11. The learned counsel also rightly placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in T.N.H.B. Vs. A.P.Damodarasamy reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 189. The Division Bench in the said decision held has hereunder : "8. With regard to first contention, it is brought to our notice that in the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu, authorised the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit III to perform the functions under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 3(c) of the Act. A perusal of the Notice issued under Section 5-A as well as the proceedings under Section 5-A(2) show that the entire proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act had been conducted only by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit II. As rightly pointed out by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the land owners, the authorisation given by the State Government for issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a statutory one. Unless and until the amendment to the Notification is issued by the Government, authorising the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Housing Scheme Unit II, to perform the functions under Section 3(c) of the Act, he has no jurisdiction to exercise the statutory functions. In those circumstances, as rightly pointed out, the proceedings initiated by him under Section 5-A of the Act is void, as the same is done without jurisdiction. Similarly, the award proceedings had also been conducted by the very same Officer without any statutory authorisation, as such the awards are also liable to be quashed." The principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in this case also the first respondent authorised only the fourth respondent, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit III, Coimbatore, whereas, the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued only by the third respondent, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit I, Coimbatore. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground also. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.No.LA.63/88 dated 23.11.2009 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the petitioners lands in SF.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C, 152/3, 150/3E and 150/3F situated in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District, is hereby quashed. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gg To 1. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit II, Coimbatore – 12. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit - I, Coimbatore – 12. 4. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme Unit-III, Coimbatore - 12. + 1 CC TO Mr.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate SR 17848 + 1 cc to the Govt., Pleader, Madras SR 17848 W.P. No.26357 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 KA (CO) RH (29.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/