STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION SIPCOT UNIT 1 GUMMIDIPONDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which the principle enunciated by the supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Amantnga and another v. Mst. Katlji and others, (1987)2 S. C. C:107: A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1353 that the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner is attracted. In the present case, the petitioner is a State undertaking which is a corporation for whose benefit the lands were acquired and it is stated that the possession of the lands was taken as early as in 1981. In the proceedings for fixation of compensation, the Land Acquisition officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40 per cent. The Subordinate judge at Tirvellore, after recording evidence, fixed the compensation at Rs. 500 per cent. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the present petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of the award on the ground that the petitioner was not made party to the Land Acquisition original Petition proceedings before the Subordinate Judge. Their contention was accepted by this court and by an order dated 10. 11. 1986 the writ petitions were allowed and the award was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge, tirvellore was directed to dispose of the Land Acquisition original Petition proceedings on or before 28. 2. 1987 after impleading the present petitioner as a party to the proceedings and giving opportunity to oppose the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was impleaded as a party and evidence was being recorded.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a petition for transfer before this Court alleging that the learned Subordinate Judge, who was hearing the land Acquisition O. Ps. was biased against the petitioner and that he was not recording the questions put to the Land Acquisition Officer and the answers given by him when he was in the witness box. THE transfer application was contested and after arguments were heard, the Land Acquisition Officer by name sathyanarayanan, who was the Special Tahsildar, filed an affidavit in this court describing himself as Special Tahsildar (land Acquisition) Krishna water schemes, Tiruvallur and giving his address as No. 45, N. G. O. Colony, Tiruvallur, chengalpattu District. In that affidavit, he stated that when he was giving evidence on 8. 4. 1987, a question was put to him by counsel appearing for the petitioner herein as follows: 'Whether the land purchased for the church was situate within the complex area or town area' According to the affidavit of the Land Acquisition officer, that question was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Subordinate Judge also refused to record the question and the answer which he may give and then allow or disallow the question. It was also stated in the affidavit by the Land Acquisition Officer that during the course of evidence he stated that the land purchased for the Church was unfit for cultivation, but it was recorded by the Learned Judge as agricultural land and the same was corrected at his instance at the time when he was directed to sign the deposition.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate judge rejected the application with an endorsement that as the award had been passed on 7. 10. 1987 and as the application was filed after the passing of the award, it rejected. It is against the said order rejecting the application, the present revision petition has been filed.