The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner had purchased lands measuring a total extent of 82 cents in Survey Nos.in R.S.Nos.476/13-A3 part, 476/11-B-1 Part, 476/10-A3 part and 476/9-B1 situate in the village No.189,Sholinganallur, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai-600 119 from M/s.Manfab Inc, vide sale deed dated 30.03.1999. While so, the respondent issued a public notice on 25.10.2004 under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,2001 for acquisition of the lands for the purpose of expansion of I.T. Corridor Express Way. The petitioner's lands to an extent of 275 sq. meters were also included in that notification and Award No.9 of 2006 dated 30.04.2006 was passed and the compensation of Rs.7,28,119/- was also directed to be paid towards compensation to the petitioner. Since, the compensation was highly inadequate, the petitioner issued a notice on 05.07.2006 and 10.07.2007 to the respondent requesting him to make a reference to the appropriate Court for enhancement of compensation. The petitioner has also made an application under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,2001 to the Collector for referring the matter to appropriate Court. But, no action was taken by the Collector. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14156 of 2008, before this Court, for directing the respondent to refer the matter to appropriate Court under Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Accordingly, this Court also, by an order dated 18.06.2008, directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's letter dated 10.07.2007. Finally, on 16.09.2008, the respondent rejected the petitioner's claim stating that the petitioner has not made the representation within 60 days of the Award as contemplated under the Act. Immediately, the petitioner issued a letter dated 26.11.2008 and informed the respondent that though the Award was dated 30.04.2006, it was signed by the Deputy Collector only on 17.05.2006 and despatched thereafter and therefore the representation made by the petitioner on 05.07.2006 was well within the 60 days time limit. The respondent sent a letter dated 06.03.2009, which was signed on 09.03.2009 and received by the petitioner on 27.03.2009 rejecting to refer the matter under Section 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act,2001. Challenging the above said two communications viz., dated 16.09.2008 & 06.03.2009, the above writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid prayer.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent and I have also gone through the documents made available on record.
3. The learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that though the award was passed on 30.04.2006, it was actually signed only on 17.05.2006. However, he adds that as per law, the date has to be reckoned only from the date of the award i.e., on 30.04.2006. If that being so the application filed by the petitioner is not within the time of 60 days, stipulated in the Act. Therefore, he submits that the rejection made by the respondent is correct and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate. Though the award was dated 30.04.2006, it was actually signed only on 17.05.2006. Thereafter only the award would have been communicated to the parties concerned. Therefore, the period of limitation would reckon from the date of knowledge of the award. In this case, though the award was dated 30.04.2006, the same was signed only on 17.05.2006, therefore, only thereafter the petitioner would have had knowledge about the said award. Even according to the respondent, they received the application from the petitioner for enhancement on 08.07.2006 itself. In such instances, the representation for enhancement for compensation is well within time of 60 days contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,2001. Therefore, the order of rejection of the respondent made on 16.09.2008 and 06.03.2009 are liable to be set aside. Further, in the earlier rejection order dated 16.09.2008, it was stated by the respondent that the petitioner's representation for enhancement of compensation was received on 16.07.2007 only and therefore there was a delay of 1 year and 77 days. But, in the later rejection letter dated 06.03.2009, the respondent has stated that he received the petitioner's representation on 08.09.2006 and therefore there is a delay of eight days only.
5. From the above it is very clear that the respondent is not sure of when the representation was received from the petitioner and they simply rejected the petitioner's representation by non-application of mind.
6. Consequently, I have no hesitation in setting aside both the impugned orders dated 16.09.2008 and 06.03.2009 and I direct the respondent to refer the subject matter of land bearing Door No.296, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai 600 119 and situated in No.189, Sholinganallur Village, comprised in survey Nos. in R.S.Nos.476/10-3 part, 476/11-B-1C part, 476/13-A3 part measuring 276 sq.m. to appropriate Court under Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
rrg To The District Collector, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram