Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1962
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
G. Sulochana Gopal - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Theni District & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 9220 of 2016; M.P. (MD) Nos. 7341 & 8964 of 2016
Decided On : 05-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Srinivasan
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Guru, Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar
The court's decision was influenced by the respondents' clear denial of laying the road on the petitioner's land, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Agricultural Land - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 - Section 3(2) - Violation of principles of natural justice - Feasibility report - Alternative route - Gifted land - Road laying - Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner objected to the laying of a road through her agricultural land, claiming violation of natural justice and lack of notice. She proposed an alternative route using gifted land. The respondents denied laying the road on her land and provided evidence of the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's objection was based on a wrong premise, as the respondents had clearly stated that the road would not be laid on her land. The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, alternative route, gifted land, road laying
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the respondents' clear denial of laying the road on the petitioner's land, rendering her objection unfounded.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Heard both sides.
2. According to the Petitioner, if the road is laid in her agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 897/1 and 896 at C. Pudupatty, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District (in which she had not gifted any portion to the Government), the said road would run through her agricultural land and it would have huge impact on her agricultural activities. However, if the land which was gifted by the adjacent land owner bearing Survey No.901 with registered Document No. 405 dated 21.01.2012 for laying the road is utilized, instead of her present land at Survey Nos. 897/1 and 896 situated at C. Pudupatty, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District, it would not hamper her agricultural activity.
3. The stand of the Petitioner is that Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 provides for issuance of notice by the Government calling upon the owner of the land it proposes to acquire or interested in such land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. Furthermore, even under the Land Acquisition Act, an objection under Section 5 is to be received against acquisition and the same to be considered.
4. At this stage, a cursory perusal of the contents of the writ affidavit filed by the Petitioner indicates that it is the plea of the Petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Added further, she was not heard before her agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.897/1 and 896 was sought to be illegally acquired for laying road by the Respondents. That apart, no notice was issued to her by the Respondents (before including her land for road laying purpose). Moreover, the Respondents, in issuing the tender notification shows scant regard for an agricultural activity and ecology. In fact, the tender notification was issued with impunity and in violation of settled procedure for acquiring private land.
5. It is to be noted that the Petitioner, significantly at para-14 of the affidavit had categorically averred that she is not against laying of road and her only objection is that the land in Survey Nos.897/1 and 896 situated at C. Pudupatty, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District, where the agricultural activity is carried out would be hampered, if the road from Mangamal Salai passes through that place.
6. Further, the Petitioner had taken a stand in the writ petition that an alternative route available and there is no necessity for acquisition. As such, since the said land was already gifted to the Town Panchayat by the adjacent land owner for laying road. Besides this, if that land is utilised, then her portion of the land would remain unaffected and he can carry out her agricultural activities. Indeed, a feasibility report was not prepared before issuing and sanctioning of the impugned tender notification.
7. In effect, the Petitioner's clear-cut case is that her representation dated 09.05.2016, wherein she had prayed (i) not to lay the road in her patta land which was not donated, (ii) to lay the road in the land bearing Survey No.901 which was donated for the purpose of laying the road may be considered by the respondents 1 to 4.
8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 that it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had gifted the lands in Survey Nos.900/3, 0.81.0 hectare measuring an extent of 19 cents by way of gift deed dated 05.12.2011 in favour of the State Government. Further, after acquiring the lands required to form the road, as per the G.O.Ms.No.568, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 15.09.2015, work order was sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Executive Engineer proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8978/2015/Oo3 dated 04.02.2016 and total amount for the work order is fixed as Rs.72 lakhs under the Panchayat NABARD Finance Scheme 2015-16. In fact, the Fifth Respondent is the successful bidder in the tender and hence,
