THULASI AMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all the above writ petitions prayed for the issue of a writs of declaration declaring that the words "on the date of publication of the Notification under Sec.4(l)" of Sec.23(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as unconstitutional as being contrary to the second proviso to Art.31-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent/Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, to calculate and pay compensation for the lands of the petitioners on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of payment of compensation.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions arc similar in facts and the contentions raised by the petitioners in their affidavits, and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are similar in facts and laws and hence all the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they received notices under Secs.9 and 10 of the Act in or about 1981 and the enquiry was also conducted in July, 1982 and that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was made as early as 1978, but that the notice and enquiry under Secs.9 and 10 was issued and conducted belatedly. The petitioners would submit that the Notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act having been made on 12.11.1975 and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act having been made on 10.11.1978, there is inordinate delay in the enquiry being conducted and orders passed. It is stated that after 1975 there is phenominal increase in land prices, especially in and around the City of Madras. It is specifically contended that the prices prevailing as on the date of Sec.4(l) notification viz., 12.11.1975 have absolutely no relevance to the market value of the lands as on the date of payment of the compensation since the market value is far more than the so called guide line value, and the actual price negotiated and fixed as between parties is still much more than value or price appearing in documents of sale. Hence it is submitted, that the market value that may be arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer acting under the Act, and fixing under Sec.23(l) of the Act viz., as on the date of Sec.4(l) notification will certainly be illusory and arbitrary. It will not be the true compensation in its real sense, and fixing the market value as on the date of Sec.4(l) notification viz., 12.11.1975 will certainly be defeating one of the major objectives of the Act and the acquisition itself will be confiscatory and without payment of full compensation.