S RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR NO 18 LAND ACQUISITION LIGNITE PROJECT VRIDHACHALAM TALUK NEYVELI 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking for a reference under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. At the outset itself, it is interesting to take note of the contents in the counter-afidavit. It is stated in paragraph 2 as follows:

(2.) It is quite obvious that the respondent is not certain even with regard to the date of service of notice under section 12(2) and the like. It is needless to state that the State should always avoid imperfections and incorrect statements in solemn counter-affidavits filed into Court. Taxing note of the contradictory dates furnished, even in respect of basic facts pertaining to the case, cost is awarded in this matter.

(3.) The main pain on which these two writ petitions are allowed is because of the stand taken by the respondent, that a copy of the award need not be given to any awardee. It is stated that the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder do not require the furnishing of an award copy. The actual rule or the relevant section had not been adverted to. Unless a copy of the award is furnished, it would not enable the awardee to know as to how far, the grounds or reasons taken into account in the award are irrelevant or illegal or improper, and to what extent, the assessment of value arrived at, is wrongly determined. When the lands belonging to each of the awardees are acquired, it is outrageous on the part of the Lane Acquisition Officer to claim that every owner of the property affected by the award, would not be entitled to the copy of the award and that only a bald notice under Section 12 (2) would be issued, Not stopping with this, it is also sworn to that the issue of notice under Section 12(2) is intended mainly for persons, who have not appeared in the enquiry and who are not physically present personally or by their representatives when the award is made whereas in the instant matter, the petitioner had appeared in person at every stage and given statements, and therefore it is up to him to have been present at the time of the pronouncement of the award. Nowhere it has been stated that if a person is not present at the time of the passing of the award, a notice under section 12(2) need not be issued to him or that the contents of the award need not be made known to him. It is open to a party to be present in the earlier stages of the enquiry, and later on, he takes the risk in not participating in the further proceedings,but the right which inheres in him under the provisions of the Act to get a notice under section 12(2) would not be deprived to him because of his absence at the time of the passing of the award. When the respondent had chosen to issue the notice, and the date of the issue of the notice or its service not having been precisely stated in the counter-affidavit it is not proved how service was effected. Admittedly which the copy of the award had not been served on him, it cannot be said that he had the proper notice of the contents of the award.