- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P. Venkatesan, & Others v. The Government Of Ta...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that Award No. 20/94 in R.C No. 1607/90 dated 2.9.94, issued by the second respondent, is ab initio void. The challenge to the award was based on a legal ground concerning the procedural validity of the award under the Land Acquisition Act. Specifically, the petitioners contended that the Collector awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 14,29,073/- without obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which was a mandatory requirement under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector failed to secure this approval before passing the award, and only sought it subsequently, which was rejected by the Commissioner. The writ petition was thus directed to determine the validity of the award on this procedural ground.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the award passed by the Collector without obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as mandated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, is valid or void ab initio.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The total compensation awarded exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs (specifically Rs. 14,29,073/-), thereby requiring prior approval from the Commissioner of Land Revenue as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and related government orders.
- The Collector did not obtain this mandatory prior approval before passing the award, rendering the award null and void.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, which explicitly states that no award shall be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or an authorized officer. The Commissioner of Land Revenue was designated as the appropriate authority to approve awards exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, as per G.O.Ms No. 2003 Revenue Department dated 13.12.1984. Although this limit was later amended to Rs. 20 lakhs by G.O.Ms No. 1027 dated 25.9.92, the government suspended this amendment shortly thereafter, reinstating the earlier requirement. On the date the award was passed, the Collector was therefore required to obtain prior approval from the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Collector failed to do so, and the Commissioner explicitly stated that the approval should have been obtained before the award. The court held that since the Act prescribes the procedure for making an award, non-compliance with the mandatory prior approval renders the award null and void. Further, the Act contains no provision for ratification of such an award after the fact. Accordingly, the award was invalidated on the basis of this fundamental procedural defect.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition was allowed, and the court held that the award is null and void ab initio due to the Collector’s failure to obtain the mandatory prior approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The direct effect of this decision is the setting aside of the impugned award. No broader precedent was established beyond the enforcement of the mandatory procedural requirement under the Land Acquisition Act. There was no order as to costs.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for declaration to declare that the Award No. 20/94 in R.C No. 1607/90 dated 2.9.94 on the file of the second respondent is ab initio void.
2. Since the validity of the award is being challenged on legal ground. I do not think there is any need to elaborate the facts. The short ground on which the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Doraisamy impugned the award is that the total compensation amount awarded by way of the value of the land is Rs. 14,29,073/- and the Collector ought to have got the prior approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as required under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. As that has not been done, the award is null and void.
3. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act requires that the award shall be made by the Collector only with the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. The wordings of the proviso is in the negative form which is as follows:
“Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf.”
4. The Commissioner of Land Revenue has been specified as the appropriate authority to approve the award of the Collector. In cases where the total compensation exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs under G.O.Ms No. 2003 Revenue Department dated 13.12.1984 The appendix to the said G.O is as follows:
“Under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1984). as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984). the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises. —
(i) The Commissioner of Land Administration, to approve every award in which the total Compensation to be allowed exceeds ten lakhs rupees, and
(ii) The District Collector to approve every award in which the total Compensation to be allowed does not exceed ten lakhs rupees.”
5. The said G.O was amended by G.O.Ms No. 1027 Revenue Department dated 25.9.92 by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs for the approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue.
6. Within a short time, by letter dated No86973.C.Spl.1/92-1, dated 4.11.1992 the Government had suspended the operation of the said G.O.Ms No. 1027 Revenue Department dated 25.9.92 and directed the Collectors to maintain ‘status quo ante’ and to continue to send the proposals for approval of valuation and approval of award statements to the Commissioner of Land Administration.
7. Hence on the date when the award was passed, it is absolutely necessary that the Collector ought to have got the prior approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue. In this case, admittedly, the Collector has not obtained the previous approval of the said Commissioner of Land Revenue. Only subsequent to the passing of the award, the Collector has written for the approval for which the Commissioner of Land Revenue has sent a reply on 18.12.95 stating that the Collector ought to have sought for the previous approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue before even the award was passed. There is no provision in the Act to ratify the award passed by the Collector.
8. It is worthwhile to extract the reply of the Commissioner for Land Revenue which is as follows:
9. Hence the award is not a valid one and virtually it is a nullity since the same had not been passed in accordance with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. When the Act provides the procedure to do a thing, that must be done in the manner in which the Act requires. Since that has not been done, the award is null and void.
10. In this case, the proviso to Section 11 (1) makes it clear that no award shall be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise. Hence the prior approval is a mandatory one and admittedly that has not been complied with. The award thus being a null and void one, the same is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Pr/VCS
Alert