THIRUMALAYAPPAN MINOR Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS KOVILPATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land-holder is the petitioner in this Civil Revision petition, which is directed against the order of the authorities below holding that the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the surplus lands taken over should be in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 and not with reference to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act (58 of 1961)as unamended (hereinafter referred to as the'act ). THEre is no dispute that according to the draft assessment roll, the amount payable to the petitioner towards the surplus lands taken over was fixed at Rs. 1 ,80 2 and this was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22. 8. 1979. A copy of the draft assessment roll was also served on the land holder on 12. 9. 1979. THE petitioner raised an objection that the final statement under s. 12 of the Act was published on 12. 2. 1976 long prior to 27. 10. 1978 when Tamil nadu Act II of 1979 came into force and therefore, the amount payable in respect of the surplus lands has to be determined without reference to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1979. This objection was overruled by the authorised Officer on theground that the amount iff respect of the surplus lands taken over becomes payable only after the publication of the notification under S. 18 (l) of the Act and as in the case of the petitioner, such a notification was published only on 3. 1. 1979, after the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act of 11 1979 came into force, the amount payable should be worked out only in accordance with theseprovisions and not without reference to them. On appeal by the petitioner, the Land Tribunal also concurred with the conclusion of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal. It is the correctness of this, that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the notification under section 12 of the Act was published on 12. 2. 1976, the notification under section 18 (1) of the Act came to be published almost three years thereafter on 3. 1. 1979 with the knowledge of a proposal to bring about certain amendments under Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 and as such, the delay on the part of the Government in publishing the notification cannot prejudice the petitioner in the matter of payment of amounts for surplus lands taken over. In support of this, learned counsel relief upon the decisions in Krishna Iyer v. State of Madras, (1967) 2 M. L. J. 422; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu prasad. A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 1593 and Ambalal v. Ahmedabad Municipality, A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1223. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no basis whatever for the claim of the petitioner that the delay in the publication of the notification under S. 18 of the Act was deliberate with a view to apply only the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 to the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to payment of amounts for surplus land taken over only in accordance with the rates, as are operative on the date of the publication of S. 18 (l) notification, as per S. 50 (l) of the Act. It was also submitted that the basis for awarding amounts for surplus lands taken over having been prescribed in the Act itself, there was no scope for the application of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to delay arising under the Land Acquisition Act, where the criterion for determining and awarding compensation is the market value as on the date of notification under S. 4 (l) of the Act.