Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3857
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & R. SUBBIAH
Rethinaboopathy Ammal
Versus
District Collector, Thanjavur District
Writ Appeal No.133 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 17-09-2012
For the Petitioner:M.Venkatachalapathy, senior counsel for M.Sriram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R1 & R2, M.E.Rani Selvam, AGP.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the suitability of the land for acquisition and the need for providing housing to the adi-dravidars, while also highlighting the lack of prejudice caused to the appellant in the acquisition proceedings.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/1978) - Section 4(2), Section 4(1), Section 5(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, as the writ petitioner, challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act. The appellant claimed that the lands were in effective cultivation and not suitable for house sites for the Harijan. The appellant also argued that the authorities did not consider alternative lands and failed to provide a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar, violating the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands were lying unused for more than five years and the appellant's actions, such as raising cultivation and erecting temporary huts, were intended to thwart the acquisition proceedings. The court also noted that the District Collector had correctly analyzed the need for providing housing to the adi-dravidars and the convenience of the land for the said purpose. The court dismissed the writ appeal, finding no mala fides in the acquisition proceedings and no prejudice caused to the appellant.
Issues: Suitability of the lands for acquisition, consideration of alternative lands, non-furnishing of the report of the Special Tahsildar to the appellant
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lands were lying unused for more than five years and the appellant's actions were intended to thwart the acquisition proceedings. The court also found that the District Collector had correctly analyzed the need for providing housing to the adi-dravidars and the convenience of the land for the said purpose. The court dismissed the writ appeal, finding no mala fides in the acquisition proceedings and no prejudice caused to the appellant.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the court found no necessity to direct the respondents to accept any of the alternate lands offered by the appellant and her family members since the very purpose of acquisition would be defeated by adopting such a course.
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
The appellant herein, as writ petitioner, unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings, resulting in her preferring this appeal.
2. To put the facts in a nut shell, the appellant is the owner of lands in S.No.372/1, classified as 'patta manavari' in the revenue records, measuring 1.07.5 hectare. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued to her on 21.7.1999 and an enquiry was conducted on 9.8.1999, wherein the land owner participated and submitted her objections and after rejecting such objections, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 30.9.1999, seeking the lands to be acquired for providing house sites to 75 eligible houseless Adi Dravidar families. Award enquiry notice under section 5(1) of the Act was issued on 18.11.1999 in Form 3 for assessment of compensation payable in respect of the lands sought to be acquired.
3. At this stage, the appellant/petitioner has come forward to initiate these writ proceedings (in W.P.No.19109 of 1999), seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records connected with Notification under Section 4(2) and the Declaration under Section 4(1) and the consequential Award Enquiry Notice under Section 5(1) of the Act. A learned single Judge of this Court, at the time of admission of the writ petition, has granted interim stay of dispossession, on 1.12.1999.
4. Since a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition, the petitioner/appellant has come forward to file this writ appeal.
5. The case of the petitioner/appellant is that she originally belongs to Tirunelveli District and she along with her sons and grand children settled in Nellithopu village, Thanjavur district, after purchasing the lands under a registered sale deed dated 2.3.1983; that though the lands were classified as 'manavari' in the Revenue records, they are in effective cultivation for all these years till date and the revenue records also show that the lands are under effective cultivation by her; that her family's growth became an eyesore to the local people since they are migrants from a different place; that since the family itself consist of more members, who can offer their hard work in cultivating the lands, they never engaged any labour, which is the main reason for the local people to grind grudge against the family of the appellant/petitioner and since the local people are giving trouble to her often, she has initiated various proceedings against the local persons, apart from the communist people, who are against the petitioner/appellant, since the petitioner/appellant and her family members are doing their own labour by not engaging any other labourers of that area belonging to the community party; that the third respondent, a leader of the community party, is always instigating the local people particularly belonging to socially and economically weaker sections; that with the above said factors, it seems, at the instigation of the third respondent, they have mooted out complaint to the authorities to acquire the lands of the petitioner/appellant in question in S.No.372/1 of Nellithopu village to an extent of 1.07.5 hectares.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner/appellant that the lands are not suitable for house sites for the Harijan and the land is away from the existing Harijan colony by four kms. and therefore, the land of the petitioner/appellant cannot be acquired at the instance of the third respondent and apart from that the beneficiaries cannot choose the lands for the purpose of providing house sites for the Harijans.
7. The further case of the petitioner/appellant is that the respondents 1 and 2 without proper application of mind and on erroneous view, have over-ruled her objections and directed passing of final declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act; that the notice under S
