Skip to content


Sri Srinivasamurthy Mandiram, Represented by Its Executive Trustee D. Pundarikaksha Das Vs. State of Tamil, Represented by the Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1984)1MLJ352
AppellantSri Srinivasamurthy Mandiram, Represented by Its Executive Trustee D. Pundarikaksha Das
RespondentState of Tamil, Represented by the Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department
Excerpt:
- .....that whether acquisition would be under section 20 of act xi of 1971 or under tamil nadu urban land (ceiling arid regulation) act, 1978, referred to as ceiling act such is being considered, and that was why the award of compensation was held up, and that expeditious action will be taken for determination of compensation, as soon as this question is solved. it is stated that, when petitioner had been called upon to produce evidence as to whether the said ceiling act would be applicable, records having not been produced, no decision could be taken and that there is no provision for payment of any ad hoc compensation as claimed by petitioner.4. mr. t. l. rammohan, learned counsel for petitioner, contends that right from the beginning, when respondents have applied provisions of act xi.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. Land belonging to the petitioner were taken possession of by third respondent on 1st October, 1978, though petitioner would claim that it took place on 18th November, 1977. In appropriate proceedings, the actual date of entry will have to be determined. It is not in dispute that for constructing tenements under Vazhai Thoppu Slum Clearance Scheme aided by Housing and Urban Development Corporation, the lands have been taken possession of and tenements have been constructed already, by third respondent. On 21st July, 1975, the earliest of notices was issued under Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1971, calling for objections, if any. On 10th August, 1975, petitioner stated that it had no objection for the lands being taken over, provided due compensation was paid which should be beneficial to the Trust. There have been subsequent communications sent through counsel seeking for immediate payment of compensation since lands were being utilised, and third respondent was deriving substantial income now claimed to be about Rs. 10,000 per month, being the rent collected from occupants of these tenements. On 2nd July, 1979, second respondent had again sent another notice under Act XI of 1971, fixing 13th August, 1979, as the date for conducting enquiry, which was replied on 13th August, 1979, stating that adequate compensation must be expeditiously granted. Once again a Form 3 Notice Rule 7 (2) under Act XI of 1971, was issued on 15th May, 1981, stating that the first respondent-Government had decided to acquire the lands under Section 17 of the Act, and to that effect a notification had been published in the gazette, dated 22nd April, 1981, and therefore petitioner was required to appear for an enquiry on 4th June, 1981. Petitioner for warded representations on 4th June, 1981. claiming a compensation of not less than Rs. 25,000 per ground and that early decision should be taken in the matter. There being tardy progress in the matter which was languishing for not less than 7 years, from the date of first notice, petitioner files this writ petition claiming that there must be an early culmination of proceedings initiated under Act XI of 1971.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that entry was made on 1st October, 1978, and that a resolution No. 20, dated 22nd January, 1981, had been passed by the Slum Clearance Board approving the proposal to acquire the lands in question, and since there is a proposal to amend Section 20 of Act XI of 1971, no further action was taken for determination of compensation, and that it would be the market value on the date of publication of the notice under Section 17 of the Act.

3. Curiously, respondents 1 and 2 take up the stand that whether acquisition would be under Section 20 of Act XI of 1971 or under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling arid Regulation) Act, 1978, referred to as Ceiling Act such is being considered, and that was why the award of compensation was held up, and that expeditious action will be taken for determination of compensation, as soon as this question is solved. It is stated that, when petitioner had been called upon to produce evidence as to whether the said Ceiling Act would be applicable, records having not been produced, no decision could be taken and that there is no provision for payment of any ad hoc compensation as claimed by petitioner.

4. Mr. T. L. Rammohan, learned Counsel for petitioner, contends that right from the beginning, when respondents have applied provisions of Act XI of 1971, and in spite of publication of a notification in the gazette, dated 22nd April, 1981, under Section 17 of the said Act, and added to it, when third respondent is in occupation of the lands by virtue of the said Act, at this stage, respondents 1 and 2 cannot resile from the said decision and state that they are still contemplating Whether the Ceiling Act would apply or not, and hence, the right of petitioner to secure compensation should be indefinitely delayed. In support of his contention he relies upon the decision rendered in W.P. Nos. 119 and 120 of 1974, wherein the question arose, whether to a notification made under Land Acquisition Act, Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1981, could be applied. It was held that once the provisions of Land Acquisition Act had been applied and steps] taken under the said Act, Land Reforms Act cannot be applied.

5. When third respondent clearly states, What a valid resolution has been passed to take over lands under Act XI of 1971, and having taken possession of the lands and erected tenements, there could be no scope for applying the provisions of any other Act other than Act XI of 1971, and respondents are estopped from pleading otherwise. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 cannot further delay the steps to be taken under Act XI of 1971, by claiming that first respondent is still taking time to decide as to what course it should adopt. This is one of those many instances wherein, several years elapsed for taking an administrative decision, and in the meanwhile, utilise the property of a citizen without promptly compensating for the property taken possession of. The petitioner is a Trust, and having lost possession of the property, and third respondent being the beneficiary, no authority bestows any earnest desire to finalise the matter at the earliest point of time.

6. Hence, the only course now open to respondents is to proceed under Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1971, based on the notification already published and conclude the proceedings on or before 1st September, 1983.

7. It is stated that certain provisions of Act XI of 1971, relating to computation of compensation have been struck down by this Court in W.P. No. 1495 of 1979 etc., by judgment, dated 25th March, 1983, holding that the compensation awardable could be only on the basis as determinable under Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the only task that remains, is to determine the quantum of compensation. When second respondent knows quite well that third respondent had taken possession of the land of the petitioner, the time now granted is more than what could ordinarily be required and hence, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondents, that final determination of compensation should be arrived at and final orders under Act XI of 1971, passed by 1st September, 1983. To this effect, this writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 300 to be paid by respondents 1 to 3 equally.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //