P.R. Jagannathan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court considered a batch of writ petitions filed by landowners concerning acquisition of their properties for expansion of the Coimbatore Airport runway. The dispute involved lands situated in Singanallur and Kalapatti villages, originally leased to the Defence Department under an agreement dated 8 August 1942 and subsequently used for civil aviation purposes. The petitioners alleged prolonged non-payment of lease rent and compensation despite continued occupation of their properties by aviation authorities. They challenged aspects of the acquisition proceedings and sought payment of their outstanding dues under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Supreme Court Allows Tamil Nadu State Appeals in Coimbatore Airport Land Acquisition Dispute
The acquisition process commenced through statutory notices issued in April 2011, followed by acquisition notifications published in subsequent years. The landowners complained that although their properties had been brought within the acquisition proceedings, compensation remained unsettled for several years. Earlier litigation resulted in interim directions concerning lease rent, restrictions on construction and maintenance of the existing position. During the proceedings, the authorities also negotiated compensation with the affected owners. After earlier negotiations failed, a settlement was reached with a majority of landowners on 6 March 2018, although certain petitioners continued to dispute the proposed terms.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing acquisition, vesting of land and determination of compensation under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the 1997 Act. It distinguished compensation determined through mutual agreement under Section 7(2) from compensation requiring determination by the Collector under Section 7(3). The Court observed that a concluded consensual settlement constituted a complete compensation package binding on the parties. Consequently, landowners who accepted the negotiated rates could not separately demand additional compensation components such as solatium beyond the agreed package merely by reopening its terms.
On the question of delayed payment, the High Court examined Section 12 of the 1997 Act, which provides interest at 9% per annum where compensation is not paid or deposited in the circumstances specified by that provision. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to statutory interest, subject to adjustments. It directed deduction of lease rent paid for overlapping periods and exclusion of periods during which interim orders obtained by the landowners had restrained the acquisition authorities. The Court considered the delay particularly significant because the negotiations had been finalised on 6 March 2018, but the Government had not released the compensation within a reasonable period.
The Court separately considered objections raised by landowners who sought access through the acquired airport land or demanded higher compensation. It declined to make an additional passage through the airport boundaries a condition for accepting compensation, having regard to airport security. Such owners could pursue their claims separately or seek determination under Section 7(3). Similarly, petitioners claiming compensation of ₹3,000 per square foot without accepting the negotiated settlement were given the option of agreeing to the rates finalised with other landowners or seeking statutory determination before the Collector. The Court emphasised the overriding public interest involved in expanding Coimbatore Airport.
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing consenting landowners to submit their ownership documents and execute the necessary agreements before the Collector, who was required to disburse the compensation within one month of the judgment. It also directed that money deposited before the Registrar General be released to the State Government for payment of compensation in accordance with its directions. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment thus addressed the binding nature of negotiated compensation, entitlement to interest for delayed payment, adjustments arising from interim orders and the need to complete acquisition proceedings for the airport expansion.
