Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For petitioners : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.P.R.Raman.
For respondent 1 : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, Addl.Govt.Pleader.
For respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.V.Manokaran COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent bearing Lr.No.41993/MW2/2007-1, dated 20.06.2008 and Lr.No.40273/MW2/2007-1, dated 20.06.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider and pass a speaking order on the petitioners' applications dated 10.07.2008, for re-conveyance of the lands.
2. The facts and contentions of these cases have already been dealt with by this Court earlier in W.P.Nos.11426 and 11427 of 2007, which were filed for the very same relief as in these Writ Petitions. In spite of that, since both the Writ Petitions involve a common issue, let us have a recap of the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.9687 of 2009 as under :
"His land to an extent of 5 acres and 14 cents in S.No.135/2B2; 38 cents in S.No.135/2A2 and 2 acres in S.No.135/2C2, Sembarampakkam Village, totalling to 7.52 acres in Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District, was acquired by the respondents for implementation of Krishna Water Project. The said land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence, an application, dated 02.11.2001, was filed under Section 48 (B) of the Land Acquisition Act, in short, "the Act", before the first respondent for re-conveyance of the said land, which was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 28.09.2006. Hence, W.P.No.11427 of 2007 was filed for quashing the said order and the said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.04.2007. Aggrieved over the said order, W.A.No.733 of 2007 was filed and the same came to be disposed of by an order dated 06.11.2007, permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation and directing the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner made another application dated 26/29.11.2007, but the respondent, without application of mind, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2008, once again reproduced the earlier order of rejection, dated 28.09.2006. Hence, he filed this Writ Petition."
3. This Court, on 03.04.2007, after discussing the matter at length, dismissed the said Writ Petitions, holding that the orders impugned, rejecting the appeals of the petitioners for exemption of land from acquisition for the purpose of Krishna Water Project, were perfectly valid. Subsequently, the said orders of dismissal were taken on appeal before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.732 and 733 of 2007, whereupon this Court held in paras 4 and 5 as follows :
"4.The learned counsel appearing for the State brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 (TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. KEERAVANI AMMAL AND ORS.). In view of the above said decision, there cannot be any doubt that the person, whose land has been acquired, cannot claim to enforce the right under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as a matter of right. However, it cannot be said that there is any embargo on such person to make any representation for consideration by the State Government and it is for the State Government to consider such a representation."
"5. In such view of the matter, even though we are not interfering with the order passed by the learned single Judge, it would be always open to the appellant in each appeal to file any fresh representation, bringing to the notice of the State Government any new fact and it would be always open to the State Government to consider such a representation in accordance with law. It is made clear that such an observation made by us would not be construed as conferring any right on the appellant in each appeal nor as deciding anything on merits. If and when such a representation is made, it has to be considered by the State Government in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in these appeals...."
4. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioners filed fresh representations, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, bringing to the notice of the State Government, namely, the first respondent, a new fact as under :
"About 30 acres of lands which were notified for acquisition for the same projects in Chembarambakkam and Karambakkam Villages have been released from the purview of Land Acquisition Act, whereas our representation on the same pattern was not considered and post Award action proceeded."
5. On receipt of the said representations, the first respondent, without even making a mention about the new fact brought forth by the petitioners, passed similar orders of rejection verbatim as that of the ones passed on 28.09.2006, which were impugned in the earlier Writ Petitions, and without making a reference to the observation made by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.732 and 733 of 2007, giving no reasons. Let us have a look at the operative portions of the orders dated 28.09.2006 and 20.06.2008 one after the other as under :
Impugned order in earlier W.P.No.11427 of 2007, dated 28.09.2006:
"I am directed to state that, the Government have examined your request to exclude the lands in an extent of 7.52 acres in S.No.135/2B2, 135/2A2 and 135/2C1 of Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, presently Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District from acquisition by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for Krishna Water Project contained in the petition cited and to inform that those lands are still required for the purpose for which it was acquired. Your request in the petition referred to above is therefore not feasible of compliance and accordingly it is rejected."
Impugned order in this W.P.No.9687 of 2009, dated 20.06.2008 :
"I am directed to state that, the Government have examined your request to exclude the lands in an extent of 7.52 acres in S.No.135/2B2, 135/2A2 and 135/2C1 of Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, presently Poonamallee Taluk from acquisition by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for Krishna Water Project contained in the petition cited and to inform that your above request is not feasible of compliance, since those lands are still required for the purpose for which they were acquired."
6. A careful reading of the above impugned orders in the earlier Writ Petition as well as in this Writ Petition coupled with the observations of the Division Bench would reveal that though the Division Bench was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, it was made clear that if any fresh representation with new facts was submitted, the respondents were to consider such a representation without being influenced by any of the observations made in the writ appeals.
7. That being so, when the petitioners submitted their representations, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, bringing forth certain new facts for consideration before the first respondent, it was the bounden duty of the first respondent to consider the said representations in accordance with law. But, the first respondent, not even referring to the observations of the Court and without looking into any of the new facts, simply rejected the said representations, with non-application of mind and without assigning reasons, reproducing the earlier order verbatim.
8. The Supreme Court, in Gram Panchayat, Villalge Kum Kalan v. State of Punjab and Others, 2008 (4) Supreme Court Cases 253, held as follows :
"12.... This Court in a series of decisions held that reasons introduce clarity in an order and failure to consider the relief/challenge in the writ petition and the absence of reasons render the High Court judgment unsustainable. In view of the fact that the High Court has not considered the challenge as to the validity or otherwise of the Amendment Act and the notification thereon, we have no other option except to set aside the impugned order and remit the same to the High Court for fresh disposal."
9. The Supreme Court has also, in a catena of decisions, held that reasoning is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the reasoning, the conclusion becomes defunct. The rationale behind it is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.
10. Keeping the above principle in mind, if we look at the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions, it would be evident that the said orders were passed without considering the new fact put forth by the petitioners in their representations dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007. Therefore, the prayer sought for in these Writ Petitions, which is for quashing the impugned orders, as they are non-speaking and passed with non-application of mind, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to consider and pass speaking orders on the representations of the petitioners, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, which were filed pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench that if and when such representations are made, they are to be considered by the State Government in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the appeals, in my considered opinion, is quite reasonable.
11. Accordingly, the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions are set aside and the matters are remanded to the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007, but not the ones dated 10.07.2008 as prayed for in these Writ Petitions, afresh and pass reasoned orders on merit and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009 are closed.
dixit To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.46, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Madras Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Taluk Office Complex, Sriperumbudur