The award passed by a land acquisition officer is to be treated as an ‘offer’: Madras High Court

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON: 17.08.2021 PRONOUNCED ON: 25.08.2021CORAMTHE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.Nos. 18130 18548 18620 19566 19571 and 19574 of 2020W.P.Nos. 532 556 502 513 523 1849 542 549 and 554 of 2021AndW.M.P.Nos. 23094 23092 24184 24188 22988 24194 22994 and 225220W.M.P.Nos. 574 588 606 2085 595 602 608 2084 577 and 582 of 2021 N.Venugopal... Petitioner in W.P.No. 1813201.Thomas Innaiah Prabhu P.C 2.P.C.Singaraj... Petitioners in W.P.No. 1854201.C.Regeenal2.R.Rickson Raj3.R.Regila Rex4.Maria Rosa... Petitioners in W.P.No. 186220R.Pramila... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 19566 19571 & 195720 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 2V.Sundaramoorth... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 502 & 5121N.A.Vathchala... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5221V.Vijayakumar... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5321T.S.Arumugam... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5421R.M.Elango... Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 549 & 5521A.Natarajan... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5521N.A.Francis Xavier... Petitioner in W.P.No. 18421Vs.1.The District CollectorKancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2.The District Revenue OfficerKancheepuram District Kancheepuram.3.The Special Tahsildarfor acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1568A 2C1 part subdivided as S.No. 1568A 5 to an extent of 210 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 185420: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 5required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioners in S.No. 1568A 2C3B part subdivided as S.No. 1568A 7 to an extent of 187 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 186220: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioners in S.No. 1587 1A to an extent of 950 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 195620: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 6consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1587 1B part subdivided as S.No. 1587 8 to an extent of 1410 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 195720: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1562B 1 part subdivided as S.No. 1562B 1A to an extent of 657 sq.mtr in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 195720: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 7Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1564B 3 part subdivided as S.No. 1564B 3 to an extent of 750 sq.mtr in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner comprised in S.No. 1585B 2A3 part subdivided as S.No. 1585B 4 to an extent of 30 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5121: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 8the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner comprised in S.No. 1567B 2 to an extent of 50 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5221: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1568A 2C3A pt.subdivided as S.No. 1568A 8 to an extent of 200 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5321: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 9calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1564B 2D pt.subdivided as S.No. 1564B 2D to an extent of 400 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5421: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1571B 1A2 pt. subdivided as S.No. 1571B 25 to an extent of 332 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 10Prayer in W.P.No. 5421: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1564B 1D to an extent of 100 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 5521: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1564B 2A to an extent of 100 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 11Prayer in W.P.No. 5521: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1570 3B1 subdivided as S.No. 1570 27 to an extent of 170 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.No. 18421: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the third respondent in Award No. 01 2020 dated 31.10.2020 Na.Ka.No.10 2010 A dated 06.11.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to comply with legal requirements required under section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 as well as Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013and the schedules for acquisition of the land belong to the petitioner in S.No. 1568A 2C2 subdivided as S.No. 1568A 6 to an extent of 217 sq.mtr Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk Kancheepuram District. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 12For Petitioners inall W.Ps. :Mr.G.SankaranFor Respondents inall W.Ps. :Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan Government AdvocateCOMMON ORDERBy consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents a common order is passed in all the Writ Petitions. 2.All these writ petitions have been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the common Award No. 20 dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent with respect to the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners herein in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk in Kancheepuram District and the communication dated 06.11.2020 in Na.Ka.No. 10 2010 A issued by the third respondent. 3.The lands measuring to an extent of 28104 sq.mts in S.No. 1587 1A etc. in Sriperumbudur Village were acquired for widening of the existing road from Singaperumal Koil to Sriperumbudur Road. Notification https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 13under Section 15(2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 was published in the Newspaper on 26.08.2009. Thereafter notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 02.06.2010. The Government then issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 143 Highways Department dated 13.08.2012 reducing the width of the road from 60 mts to 50 mts. Consequently the area under acquisition was reduced to 26416 sq.mts. A further notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act was issued on 12.05.2015. The writ petitioners herein received notices for payment of compensation for the lands acquired from each one of them as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the Act.4.In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions the petitioners have uniformly stated that they had attended the meeting in the office of the District Collector on 29.07.2016. It had been very specifically further stated that the District Revenue Officer who presided over the meeting did not mention the estimated amount individually to each one of the petitioners but rather compelled all the petitioners to fill up a form and sign it for the purpose of a common award. It was informed to the petitioners that irrespective of the category of the land the compensation https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 14would be awarded at the rate of Rs.250 per sq.ft. The petitioners contend that the said value was very low and had been fixed arbitrarily by the respondents. Thereafter notices under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the Act for enquiry on the common award was issued and the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 29.11.2018. The petitioners attended the enquiry. The petitioners however claim that they did not give their consent. As a matter of fact they claim that proper enquiry was not conducted by the second and third respondents. The second and third respondents read out a statement for the value of the lands and it had been claimed in the affidavit that this led to chaos and confusion. The petitioners also claimed that they were not handed over any statement giving the basis of how value of the land was determined. It was stated that the meeting ended abruptly. 5.It had been further stated that the petitioners received a communication dated 06.11.2020 from the third respondent informing that a common award had been passed on 31.10.2020 and enclosing only one sheet of the common award the first page containing the property taken up for acquisition and the second page containing the calculations for the common award. It had been claimed by the petitioners that the common https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 15award in entirety was not served on them and therefore they did not know the actual reasons for arriving at the compensation amount as stated in the common award dated 31.10.2020.6.The petitioners had therefore preferred the present Writ Petitions seeking to quash not just the award dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent but also the communication dated 06.11.2020 enclosing the calculation sheet of the common award of the third respondent. 7.Counter affidavits had been filed by the second respondent in which it had been sated that procedure as established by law and as recognised by law had been followed. The fact that notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act was published in the Daily Newspaper and notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette were stated. It was also pointed out that notices under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the said Act for enquiry on the common award was also served on the writ petitioners. Thereafter the award No.120 dated 31.10.2020 was passed by the first respondent District Collector Kancheepuram District. Since the common award ran into 100 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 16pages and since the petitioners had already been informed about the estimated value for the acquisition to be paid as compensation the specific extract of the above relating to calculation of the award amount was served on each one of the petitioners. 8.It has also been stated that some of the writ petitioners had also accepted to receive the award amount and had given that fact in writing. It had therefore been stated that the petitioners having accepted the award the present writ petitions cannot be maintained. It had also been stated that after the award had been passed the petitioners should approach the competent authority to raise grievances against the award and that the writ petitions are not maintainable.9.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.G.Sankaran learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.10.The grievance expressed by Mr.G.Sankaran learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had been served only an extract of https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 17the common award passed by the first respondent. This extract contained only the calculation portion. The basis or the reasoning for arriving at such calculation had not been served on the petitioners herein. The petitioners are not at all aware as to how and on what basis the award had been arrived at. The learned counsel therefore stated that the petitioners could not seek a reference to the Court for further determination of the award.11.Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan learned Government Advocate has produced the entire original records for perusal of the Court. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners have been served with an extract of the award for the lands acquired from each one of them. This calculation statement according to the learned counsel was self explanatory and contained all the details which are required for determining the award amount. The learned counsel pointed out that a reference to the Court should have been made by the petitioners and they could have vented their grievances before the said jurisdictional Court. The learned counsel urged that these Writ Petitions are not maintainable. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 1812.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and also the records produced. 13.The records produced reflect that the notices have been served on each one of the petitioners with respect to the award enquiry as contemplated under the various stages of acquisition. Notices had been served under Section 19(2) of the said Act. The meeting was held in the Office of the District Collector on 29.07.2016. It was presided by the District Revenue Officer. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that chaos and confusion prevailed during the said meeting but however they have not chosen to raise that grievance at the earliest instance. 14.Further notices as contemplated under Section 19(5) and 19(7) of the Award was also served on the writ petitioners on 12.11.2018. The meeting was held on 29.11.2018. There is no record to show that the petitioners gave representations or objections. The respondents have therefore followed the requisite procedure to the limited extent they can do so. There is no charge of mala fide against the respondents. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 1915.The first respondent after due consideration of the entire materials had passed a common award dated 31.10.2020. However the records show that an extract alone had been served on each one of the petitioners and the entire award copy had not been served on the petitioners. The extracts were served by communication dated 06.11.2020. Records are available for receipt of the same by the writ petitioners. 16.The normal procedure to be adopted next if the award is not acceptable is to seek reference to the Court for further determination of the award. The petitioners have not taken up that course but have rather filed the present writ petitions. 17.I would agree with Mr.G.Sankaran learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the petitioners even though some of them had accepted the common award are still entitled for individual copies of the entire award. Their lands had been acquired by the Government. They must be served with the award which would reflect that the lands were acquired the purpose for which the lands were acquired and the basis on which the value of the lands were estimated for compensation the total amount of https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 20compensation actually determined and the reasons for such determination. These are all facts which each one of the petitioners would certainly like to know whether they accept the award or they seek reference to the Court for further determination of the award. At any rate a copy of the award in entirety must be served on the writ petitioners herein. 18.The stand taken by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan learned Government Advocate that since the award ran to 100 pages it was not possible to serve a copy on each on of the writ petitioners has to be rejected since valuable land had been taken by the respondents and the common award must be served on each one of the petitioners. The petitioners also have a right to examine as to how their lands had been valued. They require reasons as to the basis on which the value of the land was determined. They require to also know the negative factors which affected the compensation amount. These are all factors which each one of the petitioners have a right to know and that can be done only when a copy of the award in entirety is served on the petitioners. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 2119.However the award cannot be set aside on the ground that it had not been served on the petitioners. 20.In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Trustees of the Will of A.H. Wadia reported in 1956 SCC OnLine Bom 141 :58 Bom LR 766 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had stated as follows: “2. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer as has often been said is nothing more than an offer. It is open to the person whose lands are being acquired to accept that offer or he may not accept that offer and claim a reference to the Court. By claiming a reference to the Court and going to the Court he challenges the fairness of the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award and to the extent that he challenges the award he is in the position of a plaintiff and the burden is upon him to satisfy the Court that the award made is not a proper or a fair award.” 21.In Union of India v. Special Land Acquisition Officer https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 226 SCC 454 at page 455 it had been stated as follows: “2. The award of the Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and therefore under law the State cannot question the correctness of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State is bound by the same.”22.It is thus seen that the award passed is only an offer. This has to be served in entirety to enable the person whose lands had been acquired to take a decision to either accept the offer or claim a reference to the Court. This decision can be taken only when the reasons for arriving at the compensation given in the award are disclosed. In this case the petitioners have not been served with the award in entirety. They are entitled for the same.23.In Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado 7 SCC 431 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 868 at page 436 it had been observed as follows: “12. Even in respect of administrative orders https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 23Lord Denning M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union1 All ER 1148 :2 QB 175 :2 WLR 742observed:“The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander MachineryLtd. v. Crabtreeit was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made in other words a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 24judicial performance.”24.I would therefore direct a fresh copy of the award dated 31.10.2020 to be served on each one of the petitioners herein even if they had accepted the award and had accepted to receive the award amount. The respondent is under obligation to serve a copy of the award in its entirety on each one of the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the petitioners may take a decision whether to accept the award or to proceed further in the manner known to law within the time prescribed period from the date of receipt of a copy of the award in entirety as aforesaid directed.25.With the above observations these Writ Petitions stand disposed of without interfering with the award dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent. No order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 25.08.2021Index:Yes NoInternet:Yes NovsgTo https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 251.The District CollectorKancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2.The District Revenue OfficerKancheepuram District Kancheepuram.3.The Special Tahsildar (LA)Oragadam Industrial Park RoadInfrastructure SchemeRamanuja NagarSriperumbudur 602 105.4.The Chief Engineer (GeneralHighways DepartmentIntegrated Chief Engineers Office Complex76 Sardar Patel Road Little Mount GuindyChennai 600 025.5.The Secretary to GovernmentThe State of Tamil NaduState Highways Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis 26 vsg6.The Special Tahsildar (LA)Oragadam Industrial Park RoadInfrastructure SchemeRamanuja LaneSriperumbudur 602 106Kancheepuram District.7.The Chief Engineer (GeneralHighways DepartmentChepauk Chennai 600 005.8.The Divisional Engineer II TNRSP II Highways Department Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.Pre delivery order made in W.P.Nos. 18130 18548 18620 19566 19571 and 19574 of 2020W.P.Nos. 532 556 502 513 523 1849 542 549 and 554 of 2021AndW.M.P.Nos. 23094 23092 24184 24188 22988 24194 22994 and 225220W.M.P.Nos. 574 588 606 2085 595 602 608 2084 577 and 582 of 2021 25.08.2021 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis

Summary: The award of the Land Acquisition Officer, is nothing more than an offer. It is open to the person whose lands are being acquired to accept that offer or he may not accept that offer and claim a reference to the Court. This was held by the Hon’ble Justice C. V. Karthikeyan in the case of N. Venugopal and Ors. Vs. The District Collector and Ors. [W.P.No. 18130 of 2020] on 25th August 2021, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Chennai. The brief facts of the case are, the lands measuring to an extent of 28104 sq.mts in S.No. 1587/1A etc., in Sriperumbudur Village, were acquired for widening of the existing road from Singaperumal Koil to Sriperumbudur Road. Notification under Section 15(2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 was published in the Newspaper on 26.08.2009. Thereafter, notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 02.06.2010. The Government then issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 143, Highways Department dated 13.08.2012 reducing the width of the road from 60 mts to 50 mts. Consequently, the area under acquisition was reduced to 26416 sq.mts. A further notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act was issued on 12.05.2015. The writ petitioners herein received notices for payment of compensation for the lands acquired from each one of them as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the Act. The present petitions have been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the common Award No. 1 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 passed by the first respondent with respect to the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners herein in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, in Kancheepuram District and the communication dated 06.11.2020 in Na.Ka.No. 10/2010/A issued by the third respondent. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had been served only an extract of the common award passed by the first respondent. This extract contained only the calculation portion. The basis or the reasoning for arriving at such calculation had not been served on the petitioners herein. The petitioners are not at all aware as to how and on what basis the award had been arrived at. The learned counsel therefore stated that the petitioners could not seek a reference to the Court for further determination of the award. The counsel for the respondents submitted that, the petitioners have been served with an extract of the award for the lands acquired from each one of them. This calculation statement according to the learned counsel was self-explanatory and contained all the details which are required for determining the award amount. The learned counsel pointed out that a reference to the Court should have been made by the petitioners and they could have vented their grievances before the said jurisdictional Court. It has also been stated that some of the writ petitioners had also accepted to receive the award amount and had given that fact in writing. It had therefore been stated that the petitioners having accepted the award, the present writ petitions cannot be maintained. It had also been stated that after the award had been passed, the petitioners should approach the competent authority to raise grievances against the award and that the writ petitions are not maintainable.