RAJARAJESHWARI DANESH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings (notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1547 dtd. 5/11/1992) on the ground that the subject land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of East Coast Road invoking emergency clause under Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). However, as per Sec. 17(3- A) of the Act, the respondents ought to have tendered payment of 80% of the compensation to the person interested or entitled thereon. Whereas the petitioners were not paid any compensation even till today. Another ground is that Sec. 4(1) notification was issued on 5/11/1992 and award was passed on 16/8/1995 in Award No.1 of 1995, however no notice was served on the petitioners under Sec. 4 (1) or under Sec. 11 of the Act. Compensation also has neither been paid to the land owners or interested persons or deposited in the court. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties even till today. The petitioners have put up construction and constructed dwelling house and the houses were also assessed to the property tax and they are regularly paying property tax. As per Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the award pertaining to the subject property has been made more than five years prior to the commencement of the new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed as per Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Public Works Department in the Government of Tamil Nadu was bifurcated into Public Works Department and Highways Department with effect from 1/8/1996 vide GO.Ms.No.326, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (G) Department, dtd. 2/9/1996. As such, the subject matter in the impugned Government Order now comes under the administrative control of the Highways Department and the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department alone is competent to decide the claim of the petitioners and to give any relief to the petitioners based on the outcome of the above writ petitions.

(3.) In similar writ petitions relating to the subject land, learned Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct inspection with regards to the status of the properties to ascertain the distance between the East Coast Road and the properties. The learned Advocate Commissioner filed report and stated that all the petitioners have constructed their houses and obtained electricity service connection and living there. He also mentioned the distance between the subject property of the respective petitioners and the East Coast Road. In almost all the writ petitions, the distance between the subject property and the East Coast Road is not below 15 meters distance.