A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has reversed an order passed by a single judge for referring a land acquisition dispute to a civil court for enhancement of compensation even though the land owner, EVP Estates and Properties, had accepted ₹44.41 crore from the Kancheepuram district administration without any protest after giving way its lands in Manapakkam and Kolapakkam for expansion of the Chennai airport.
Allowing a writ appeal preferred by the Collector, a Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and P. Velmurugan held the single judge had ordered for the reference without considering as to how a landowner could insist on enhancement of compensation after having received the entire consideration without a semblance of protest. The single judge’s order was factually as well as legally unsustainable, the Bench held.
Delving into the background of the case, the Bench pointed out that the State issued a Government Order on October 9, 2007 granting administrative sanction for acquisition of 358.76.5 hectares of land in Kolapakkam, Manapakkam, Tharapakkam, Gerugambakkam and Kovoor Villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk of Kancheepuram District for the expansion of Chennai airport.
To begin with, 126.59 acres of land in Manapakkam and Kolapakkam Village were acquired. The government issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act of 1997 on June 5, 2008 and a G.O. was issued on July 29, 2008 fixing the value for different kinds of land. The lands owned EVP Estates and Properties in Kolapakkam and Manapakkam were acquired between 2009 and 2012.
The land owner had, on receipt of a copy of the individual awards with respect to different survey numbers, executed separate agreements after agreeing to receive the compensation in full quit. The Collector paid the compensation taking into account the consent agreements. However, thereafter, the land owner turned volte-face and filed a writ petition in the High Court demanding enhancement of compensation.
Authoring the judgment for the Bench, Mr. Justice Sasidharan said: “The Director of EVP Estates and Properties, signatory to the agreements, is not a layman or an illiterate. The Director executed the agreements on behalf of the respondent with eyes open and knowing fully well its consequences. The agreements contained clauses (with respect to) accepting the compensation and indicating the legal consequences.
“The respondent (EVP) could have accepted the award amount with protest. It was essentially a choice. The respondent agreed to receive the compensation and in token of acceptance of the awards, executed individual agreements. The respondent is bound by the terms of agreement. It cannot unilaterally be cancelled by the respondent.”
