STATE OF T.N. Vs. P. KANAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions raise a common question. Having regard to the nature of the question raised, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail and it is enough, if the broad facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the question raised. Manali village in Chingleput Taluk, Chingleput District, was an inam village which became an estate under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1936). For the purposes of the Madras Refineries Ltd., a major portion of the lands in the said village was notified to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Aquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in all these cases in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 3 -2 -1965. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 9 -6 -1965. Under the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act, possession was taken on different dates even before the passing of the award.

(2.) THE Tamil Nadu Legislature had enacted the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963) hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act. The Government by G. O. Ms. No. 3265, Revenue, dated 21st November, 1966 issued a notification under the Abolition Act for the purpose of taking over the village on 15th December, 1966. The second respondent in W. P. No. 489 of 1971 filed W. P. No. 2816 of 1966 on the file of this Court against the notification of the village under the Abolition Act and obtained an interim order of stay from this Court on 14 -12 -1966 preventing the Government from proceeding further pursuant to the notification issued under the Abolition Act. As pointed out already, under Section 17 (1) of the Act, possession was taken on different dates even before the passing of the award, of different parcels of land notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Some of those lands had been taken possession of even before the issue of notification under the Abolition Act. Under those, circumstances, the Government had to make up its mind whether it will proceed with the acquisition of the lands under the provisions of the Act or not. It appears that as a result of a conference the inamdars had with the Government officials and Ministers concerned, G. O. Ms. No. 1111, Revenue, dated 3rd June, 1969 was issued. This Government order referred to the steps that had been already taken under the Act as well as the Abolition Act and the pendency of the writ petition, W. P. No. 2816 of 1966 on the file of this Court as well as the interim order passed by this court. The Government order stated :

(3.) THOUGH in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, it was contended that the first respondent acted mala fide in passing these awards, that he had colluded with the inamdars of the village in question and that consequently his act was fraudulent, the only point that was urged before me in the course of the hearing of the writ petitions by the learned Advocate -General, who appeared for the petitioner in these writ petitions was that the first respondent, Land Acquisition Officer, had not taken into account the tenure of the land in determining the market value of the land as provided for in Section 23 of the Act. According to the learned Advocate -General, the lands in the inam village were subject to the obligation of paying jodi or quit rent, in addition to the full assessment as imposed by the Tamil Nadu Inam Assessment Act, 1956 (Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956); this recurring obligation imposed on the land should have been taken into account in determining the market value of the lands in question; but the Land Acquisition Officer simply compared the sales relating to ryotwari lands in the adjacent village for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation; and consequently the failure of the Land Acquisition Officer to take into account the tenure of the land, namely, the lands being inam lands has vitiated his award.