Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4953
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
Suganthi Subbammal
Versus
The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar & Another
W.P. NO.7020 OF 2000
Decided On : 16-11-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader.
Once the land is acquired and possession is taken, the property vests in the hands of the respondents, and the petitioner loses her title. The petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings after participating in the award enquiry and acknowledging the compensation.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Objections - Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978 - Section 4(2), Section 4(1), Section 11(2) - The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 - MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (3) CTC 158], SOUNDARAVALLI AMMAL v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2007 (5) CTC 241], MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY v. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [(1996) 11 SCC 501], SAWARAN LATA v. STATE OF HARYANA [(2010) 7 MLJ 121]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was acquired for providing house sites to a community. The petitioner objected to the acquisition, but the objections were overruled. The petitioner received the compensation amount but did not encash it. The possession of the land was taken, and the beneficiaries were given pattas. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's objections were considered, and the acquisition proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. The court held that the petitioner, having participated in the award enquiry and acknowledged the receipt of the compensation amount, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the initial acquisition order or notification, and the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the petitioner's objections, the validity of the acquisition proceedings, and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the land is acquired and possession is taken, the property vests in the hands of the respondents, and the petitioner loses her title. The court also emphasized that the petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings after participating in the award enquiry and acknowledging the compensation. Additionally, the court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not challenge the initial acquisition order or notification.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
1. The petitioner herein is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 1.84.0 hectare in S.No.74/4A and 0.03.0 hectare in Survey No.74/4B situated in Boothalpuram Village, hamlet of Chinnaiyapuram, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.
2. Proceedings have been initiated by the respondents for the purpose of providing house sites for 52 families of Adi Dravidar Community of Boothalpuram Village, hamlet of Chinnaiyapuram, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. Accordingly, after the inspection of the lands belonging to the petitioner, a notice in Form-I under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978 was issued to the petitioner on 21.07.1999 and 16.08.1999.
3. Therefore, in pursuance to the above said notice, the petitioner was informed to appear before the respondent No.1 for an enquiry on 03.09.1999. The petitioners husband appeared on behalf of the petitioner and gave his objections. On a consideration of the objections, the respondent No.1 overruled the same and sent his report recommending acquisition proceedings, to the respondent No.2.
4. A notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978 was approved by the respondent No.1 in and by his proceedings dated 24.10.1999. In pursuance to the said order it was also published in the District Gazette and its substance was published in the locality. In pursuance to the notification issued in Form III under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Special Tahsildar on 25.02.2000. The above said notice dated 16.02.2000 was served on the petitioner on 17.02.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 03.03.2000. Once again, the petitioners husband made his appearance on behalf of the petitioner and his statement was recorded.
5. A notice issued under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978 was sent to the petitioner, informing her to receive the compensation amount of Rs.26,942/-. The petitioner has received the bill for Rs.26,942/-on 21.03.2000. The petitioner has also signed in a revenue stamp acknowledging the receipt of the amount mentioned in the bill. The possession of the land was taken on 23.03.2000.
6. Even though the petitioner has acknowledged the receipt and received the bill for the purpose of presenting the same to encash the amount, she did not do so. However, she approached this Court and filed the present writ petition and obtained an order of stay on 17.04.2000. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.11.1999 issued under Rule 5(1) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979.
7. The interim stay granted already was vacated by this Court in and by the order dated 29.11.2001 on the ground that possession has been taken already. After the interim order was vacated, the possession has been handed over to the beneficiaries and by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.05.2002 free housing pattas have been given.
8. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made a detailed objections to the proposed acquisition in pursuance to the notice issued by the first respondent under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978. It is his further submission that the objections given by the petitioner have not been considered properly by the respondents. According to the learned counsel, the objections of the petitioner must have been sent to the requisition body and thereafter, the orders ought to have been passed by affording an opportunity to the petitioner after serving the copy of the remarks of the requisition body. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Honourable Court rendered in MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (3) CTC 158]. The learned counsel also made reliance o
