K G KOTHANDAPANI NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents have acquired in the year 1974 lands in Keelkaranai and other surrounding villages for developing Maraimalai Nagar Satellite New Town. THE petitioner who has owned land at Keelkaranai bearing Survey No.163 measuring 4.66 cents, Survey No.160 measuring 0.73 cents, Survey No.158/1 measuring 0.19 cents in all totalling an extent of 5.58 cents were acquired by section 4(1) notification of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') issued on 16.10.1974 which contains all other lands which are included for the said scheme. Ultimately, an award came to be passed by the third respondent fixing Rs.30/- per cent in respect of the properties of the petitioner like other properties also. It is seen that one Ramadoss and his mother Lakshmikanthammal who have owned properties in S.Nos.155/3 and 56/2 in the same Keelkaranai Village whose properties were also acquired and the award passed fixing Rs.30/- per cent by the Tahsildar, have filed L.A.O.P.No.98/1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet who by a final order dated 6.9.1996 has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.193.18 per cent. It was after enhancement of the said compensation in respect of the said owner whose property stood adjacent to the property of the petitioner, the petitioner has made an application for re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28(A) of the Act and that representation was addressed to the second respondent who is the requisitioning authority. Between the date of enhancement of the award passed by the Sub-Court dated 6.9.1996 and the date of representation stated to have been made by the petitioner to the requisitioning authority, namely, 5.10.1996, the same is within a period of three months from the date of award of the Court.

(2.) HOWEVER, the application which should have made to the first respondent-District Collector has been wrongly addressed to the second respondent, namely, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. It is seen that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority who has received the said representation dated 5.10.1996 on 17.10.1996 as it is seen in the communication of the Tahsildar addressed to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority dated 19.2.1998 has chosen to forward the same to the Tahsildar-the third respondent on 19.2.1997 by keeping it with them for nearly four months. It was the third respondent-Tahsildar after realising that the authority to decide about the re-determination of compensation under section 28(A) of the Act is the Collector has in his turn forwarded it to the Collector on 20.3.1997 having kept with him for more than 40 days and in that process ultimately when the Collector has received the representation of the petitioner made under section 28(A) of the Act, it was on 20.3.1997 which was beyond three months period as permitted under section 28(A) of the Act. It was on that basis the Collector passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis that under Section 28(A) of the Act such application for re-determination of compensation should have been filed within three months' time from the date of the award passed by the competent Court under Section 18 of the Act enhancing the amount and in the present case, the representation has been filed on 20.3.1997 and in that view of the matter, rejected the claim of the petitioner as against which the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) IN view of the same the impugned order of the first respondent dated 13.4.2008 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to take into consideration and pass appropriate orders regarding the re-determination of the amount of compensation in respect of the property of the petitioner based on the award passed in respect of the neighbour in L.A.O.P.No.98/1994 and such order shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.