K. AYYAMUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitions viz., WP Nos.23902, 23903 and 24197 of 2007, challenge is made to Award Nos.3/1999 -2000 dated 30.06.2009,

(2.) /1999 -2000 dated 30.06.2009 and 1/1999 -20000 dated 10.06.2009 respectively on the file of R2/Land Acquisition Officer, Coke Oven Plant Project, Mettur, with a consequential prayer to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings initiated by virtue of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in G.O. Ms.Nos.66, 67 and 68, Industries Department, dated 28.03.1995 insofar as those proceedings relate to the lands of the petitioners herein. 2. In fact, the present writ petitioners were parties before this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation viz.,

(3.) MR .V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP Nos.23902 and 23903 of 2007, placed the following submissions. At the instance of Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (SISCOL) promoted by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited (TIDCO), vast lands to an extent of 523 acres at M.Kalipattai Village were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in violation of Articles -14 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India since the purpose of acquisition for the requisitioning body -SISCOL falls outside the scope of Section 3 (f) of the Act which defines what is 'public purpose'. In the present cases, Award was passed on 30.06.1999 and 10.06.1999 respectively without examining the merits of the challenge to the acquisition proceedings, hence, the present writ petitions are well maintainable. Though the purpose of acquisition was said to be to establish a Coke Oven Plant by the TIDCO in association with Lakshmi Machinery Works Limited, Coimbatore, through SISCOL and the extent of land involved was about 532 acres, the present writ petitions are confined only to 3.56 and 52 acres of land which lies adjacent to residential area and the prayer of the petitioners to exclude these lands may have to be accepted on the ground that such exclusion will not affect the project. The Notification, dated 28.03.1995, issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, though specifically mentions that the lands of the petitioners are required for a public purpose ie., setting up of a Coke Oven Plant by the TIDCO in association with Lakshmi Machinery Works Limited Coimbatore through SISCOL, a Public Company incorporated for this purpose, the fact remains that during 2008, SISCOL was dissolved for amalgamation with another concern vide Order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Bombay High Court in Company Application No.1222 of 2007. Even after the management of the beneficiary Company/SISCOL was taken over with effect from 01.04.2007, the act of the authorities in continuing the acquisition proceedings in favour of the beneficiary company, which is not in existence at all, clearly tantamounts to fraud. In other words, since the Government did not issue any other fresh or different Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for a new purpose, further continuation of the acquisition proceedings is ex facie illegal. In the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, originally, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Pig Iron Project, Mettur, was authorized to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5 -A of the Act and therefore, if at all the acquisition proceedings were to continue, only the said authority alone can proceed further; while so, allowing the Special Tahsildar appointed for the Coke Oven Plant Project, Mettur, Salem District, to perform the functions of the Collector without there being a fresh or different Notification is absolutely illegal. In support of such argument, reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in TNHB v. A.P.Damodarasamy (2007 -3 -MLJ -189) wherein, it was categorically held that unless the Officer is duly authorised by way of notification or order by the Government, he cannot perform the functions as provided in the Act. The petitioners being villagers with rural background were unaware of the share -holding patterns of the constitution of the requisitioning body/SISCOL at the time of filing of the writ petition. SISCOL is neither a Government Company nor a public Concern, but very unfortunately, the respondents misled the Court by stating that SISCOL was a public Company, hence, the entire acquisition proceedings without there being any public purpose are liable to be quashed as illegal. Since there are material irregularities such as non -publication of delegation of powers to the Land Acquisition Officer concerned to act as Collector, W.P. Nos.6799 and 6800 of 1999 were filed challenging the Notification and Declaration under Section 4(1) and 6 respectively of the Act, however, those petitions were dismissed due to the fraud played with the court by the third respondent/Special Tahsildar (LA), Pig Iron Plant Project, Mettur, Salem District, who deliberately suppressed the material facts relating to the substance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and misrepresented that TIDCO has sufficient equity shares from SISCOL and that SISCOL is controlled by the Government as defined in Section 3(cc) and therefore, the acquiring body is empowered to resort to the procedure under Chapter -II of the Act. Further, in view of non -observance of the procedure under Chapter -VII, the entire acquisition process is rendered void and it also suffers from want of jurisdiction, whereas, in the subsequent proceedings in W.P. Nos.8127 and 8200 of 2000, challenging the notice seeking delivery of possession, the respondents have categorically admitted in their counter that TIDCO holds 11% of enquiry shares only, which clearly indicates that the requisitioning body/SISCOL is neither a Corporation owned/controlled by the Government as defined in Section 3(cc) of the Act nor a Government Company falling within the definition of Section 617 of the Companies Act. Had the respondents fairly submitted these vital particulars when the earlier WP Nos.6799 to 6801 of 1999 were dealt with, the Court would not have dismissed the same. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others), learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court to quash the proceedings for the reason that fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the court must come with clean hands. But, in the present case, when the respondents themselves clearly admitted in the counter affidavit filed in WP Nos.8127 and 8200 of 2000 to the effect that TIDCO owned only 11% shares of SISCOL and thereby, it is quite apparent that the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of Chapter -II lost the legal sanctity due to serious incurable infirmities crept in the inception itself, the judgment obtained in favour of the respondents by playing fraud on the court is actually a nullity and it is non -est in the eye of law. It can be challenged even in collateral proceedings and therefore, the present writ petitions filed, challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated wrongly, deserve to be allowed. The copy of the Award was not furnished to the petitioners for a long time, as a result, after losing their valuable lands because of the acquisition proceedings, they could not even make reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Reference Court within the prescribed limitation period. Virtually, the petitioners' right to make reference under Section -18 was so conveniently taken away. Sub -section(1) of Section -12 of the Act postulates that Award made under Section -11 shall be filed in the Collector's Office and the same shall be conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether or not they have respectively appeared before the Collector, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. In the case on hand, although the Award was passed on 30.06.1999 for a pittance sum towards compensation, even during the pendency of the 2nd round of writ proceedings in W.P. Nos.8127 and 8200 of 2000, the petitioners were not furnished with the copy of the Award, however, only after a direction to the authorities, while dismissing the said writ petitions vide common order dated 05.06.2007, to furnish a copy of the Award to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with law, the petitioners were able to get the copy and now, they are before this Court. In view of the fact that there was no Notification authorising any officer much less the Land Acquisition Officer (Coke Oven Project) or the RDO to perform the functions of the Collector beyond the stage of Section