9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, namely, land admeasuring 1.45 acres comprised in T.S. No. 14, classified as government wet land in Chidambaram Municipal Town, South Arcot District was needed for the above public purpose. The notification under Section 4(1) was also published in the two newspapers on November 18, 1988 and in the locality on March 27, 1989. The appellants filed objections to the acquisition before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, 'RDO'), Chidambaram. The diverse objections to the acquisition were raised; one of such objections being that the other lands behind the existing depot of the Corporation were available and could be used for the purpose for which their land was sought to be acquired. They stated that their family was dependant upon the income from the saw mill existing on the land and by compulsory acquisition of their land, they would be deprived of the sole means of livelihood. 3. The RDO considered the objections put forth on behalf of the Appellants and submitted his report to the Government on conclusion of the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. 4. It appears that when the report of the RDO was under consideration, the Appellants sent a representation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' for the purposes of the Act, the procedure contemplated in Part VII of the Act was required to be mandatorily followed and since the said procedure has not been followed, the acquisition is bad in law. In this regard, Mr. Pallav Shishodia placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Raja Ram and Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 66 10. On the other hand, Mr. B. Balaji, Learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu supported the view taken by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. He submitted that the proceedings for acquisition of the Appellants' land have been initiated and concluded in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act. There is no illegality in the acquisition of the Appellants' land. He referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government before the High Court in opposition to the writ petition. 11. The Act was enacted in 1894 for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on such acquisition. The Act has undergone some amendments in 1919, 1921, 1923, 1933, 1962, 1967 and 1984; the last major amendments being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A : 15. The above legal position has been reiterated by this Court in various decisions including the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and Radhy Shyam (2011) 5 SCC 553 cited by Mr. Pallav Shishodia. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 627, this Court in paragraph 6 of the Report stated thus: 6. It is not in dispute that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. 16. In Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14, this Court referred to Munshi Singh (1973) 2 SCC 337 and in paragraph 35 of the Report stated that the limited right given to the owner/pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y from the Corporation's depot and, thus, the land of the Appellants alone was suitable for the expansion of depot. The RDO, accordingly, forwarded its report to the Government. 20. On October 26, 1989, TELC issued a public notice in a daily newspaper 'Dina Malhar' for sale of its land referred to above. The Appellants sent the copy of the said notice to the Government. However, the Government was not persuaded to accept the landowners' objections and on consideration of the RDO's report proceeded with the issuance and publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 21. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the land belonging to the TELC is suitable as that land is situated just behind the existing depot; the existing depot has already access to the main road from Chidambaram to Cuddalore and on acquisition of the land of TELC, the acquired land too would have access to the main road through the existing depot of the Corporation. He, thus, submitted that suitability aspect has not at all been rationally considered by the Government. 22. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, expansion of existing depot, particularly, for a workshop, the Appellants' land is definitely more suitable. Pertinently, in their objections, the Appellants have not challenged the public purpose for the acquisition of their land. In what we have indicated above, it cannot be said that suitability aspect has not been reasonably or rationally considered by the Government. 25. Then comes the second contention of Mr. Pallav Shishodia. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raja Ram (1981) 2 SCC 66 and submitted that the erstwhile Corporation or the successor Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) is a 'government company' for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, compliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act had to be made in order to lawfully acquire any land for its purpose. In this regard, he referred to the averment made in the reply to I.A. No. 3 of 2003 that TNSTC was the beneficiary of the acquisition; it is they who have remitted the extent of compensation quantified by the authorities under the land acquisition. 26. With regard to the above contention of Mr. Pallav Shishodia, it is enough to say that it overlooks S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1981) 2 SCC 66, the definition of 'company' in Section 3(e) of the Act prior to its substitution fell for consideration. The definition of 'company' under consideration read as follows: The expression company means a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1890 or under the (English) Companies Acts, 1862 to 1882 or incorporated by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or by an Indian law, or by Royal Charter or Letters Patent and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, an a registered society within the meaning of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, or any other law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force in any State. 29. It was in the context of the above definition that this Court held in Raj Ram (1981) 2 SCC 66 that the Food Corporation of India was not divested of its character as a company within the meaning of definition of Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Act. As noticed above, the definition of 'company' has undergone complete change and the government company has been expressly excluded from the expression 'company' for the purposes of the Act. 30. For the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to use the saw mill but this Court in its order dated May 8, 2002 only said that the saw mill shall not be demolished till further orders. No permission was granted to the Appellants to use the saw mill. In other words, for more than ten years the saw mill is closed after possession was taken over from the Appellants. In the circumstances, this is not a case fit for exercise of power under Article 142 and declare the acquisition of the Appellants' land bad although the acquisition proceedings have been completed in accordance with law. 32. Lastly, the learned senior counsel invited our attention to the application (I.A. No. 4) wherein the Appellants offered for amicable settlement by expressing their readiness and willingness to give an area of land admeasuring 13250 square feet out of the total land of 1.45 acres (i.e. 1 acre and 19445 sq. ft.) free of cost to the Corporation. The offer is not acceptable to Mr. B. Balaji. He submitted that such a small area is of no use for expansion of the existing depot. We do not find any unreasonableness in the submission of the counsel that an area of 13250 square feet would not meet the purpose for which the Appellants' land has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
