R.KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by issuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) in G.O.(M.s).No.1491/Pw.Hs- 2/Department, dtd. 27/10/1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, dtd. 30/10/1992 followed declaration made under Sec. 6 in G.O.(M.s).No.1164, P.W.(Highways) (HS2) dtd. 6/8/1993 as published in Part-II, Sec. -2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dtd. 13/8/1993 respectively culminating into issuance of notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by the R.D.O. Chengalpet/third respondent herein, signed by him on 21/8/2015, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.338/5B2, measuring to an extent of 34 cents, situated in Thiruvidanthai group, Vada Nemmeli village then Chengalpet taluk and district and now in Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District as having statutorily lapsed in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and non-est in law.

(2.) The petitioner owned the land comprised in Survey No.338/5, to an extent of 62 cents, situated in Thiruvidanthi Group, Vada Nemmili Village, Chengalpet. It was purchased by him by a registered Sale Deed dtd. 11/10/1989, vide Document No. 2720 of 1989. He has put up a compound wall around his property and subsequently sub divided as Survey Nos.338/5A and 338/5B2. While being so, the petitioner received a notice in the month of August 2015 under Sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after called as Act), dtd. 26/8/1995, signed by the third respondent on 21/8/2015. It reveals that an extent of 34 cents comprised in Survey No.338/5B2 was sought to be acquired under the Act and passed an award in Award No. 13 of 1995, dtd. 26/8/1995, thereby the petitioner was called upon to receive the compensation at Rs.1,07,769.00 (Rupees one lakh seven thousand seven hundred and sixty nine only), on production of title documents. The petitioner was not served with any notice whatsoever and as such, he issued notice to the third respondent for details with regard to acquisition.

(3.) Later, the petitioner came to know about the 4(1) notification issued on 27/10/1992 in G.O.Ms.No.1491/Pw/Hs-2/Department and published in the local dailies on 2/11/1992. On 11/11/1992, the substance of the 4(1) notification was published in the locality. Subsequently, on 13/8/1993, the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was Gazetted and published in the local dailies on 14/8/1993 and 15/8/1993. The substance of the declaration under Sec. 6 was published in the locality on 26/8/1993. On 1/6/1994, the notification under Sec. 7 was Gazetted. The notices under Sec. 9(3) and 10 were sent as per the order of the Sub-Collector on 7/7/1995. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that he was not paid any compensation till today and the possession of the property has not been taken by the respondents and he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.