SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 1533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
R. Rangarajan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The District Collector Thiruvellore District and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 8181 & 8182 of 2003
Decided On : 17-02-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Thanka Sivan
For the Respondents: Jayaprakash Narayanan

Headnote:

General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 8(1) - New Central Act - Section 105-A(3) - Harijan Welfare Schemes Act - Section 4(1), 10(2) and 11(2) - Notification – Land Acquisition and Requisition – Land Acquired for purpose of providing house sites to members of Adi Dravidar community - Acquisition proceedings – Challenged - Respondents have filed counter affidavit justifying acquisition proceedings - Petitioners filed W.M.P for raising additional grounds and W.M.P. for amendment of existing prayer in writ petitions - Said W.M.Ps. were allowed by this Court, however, making it clear that allowing said W.M.Ps. shall be without prejudice to case of respondents - Lands under acquisition are classified as wet lands and therefore, they cannot be acquired for purpose of providing house sites to members of Adi Dravida community - Held, Section 105 of new Central Act states that provisions of new Central Act will not apply to land acquired under enactments specified in IV Schedule.. In IV Schedule to new Central Act, 13 Central enactments have been listed - This means that new Central Act will not apply to acquisitions under 13 enactments listed in IV Schedule - This will not mean that new Central Act will automatically apply to Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, because, Harijan Welfare Schemes Act has been passed by State Legislature and not by Parliament and that it had also received assent of President then - Opinion of this Court, Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2015 was introduced only to update provisions of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act relating to payment of compensation in tune with provisions of new Central Act which provides for payment of generous compensation to land losers - Only qua payment of compensation and rehabilitation – Court view that in case at hand, that stage has not reached at all, because, after acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, petitioners have filed present writ petitions and have obtained absolute stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to which, State was not even able to proceed with award enquiry - Writ petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) vide impugned gazette publication dated 19.08.2002 amended by an errata dated 01.11.2002 published in Form - II in the Thiruvellore District Gazette, insofar as the same relates to the petitioner's lands in Ponpadi Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvellore District, as lapsed. Rangarajan (petitioner in WP No. 8181 of 2003) is the husband of Sakunthala Rangarajan (petitioner in WP No. 8182 of 2003). The couple own a large extent of land in S. Nos. 150/3, 150/5, 150/2A, 150/2B, etc. in Ponpadi Village, Thiruvellore District, out of which, by the impugned proceedings, the Government sought to acquire 6.13 acres of land for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the Adi Dravidar community under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for brevity "the Harijan Welfare Schemes Act"). Challenging these acquisition proceedings, these writ petitions have been filed.

2. A few dates and events that are relevant for deciding these writ petitions are catalogued hereunder:

"a. Notice under Form I Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 read with Section 4(2) of the Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, was served on the petitioners, fixing the date of enquiry as 18.08.2000 and calling upon them to state their objections, if any.

b. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 19664 of 2000 which was dismissed by this Court on 23.07.2000 as premature.

c. By a fresh notice dated 13.08.2001, the petitioners were called once again for enquiry on 03.09.2001.

d. On 03.09.2001, the petitioners submitted their objections stating that the lands under acquisition are classified as wet lands and there are other poramboke lands which can be allotted to the members of the Adi Dravida community.

e. The Special Tahsildar sent a report/recommendation dated 23.10.2001 to the District Collector rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners.

f. The District Collector passed orders under Section 4(1) of the Harijan Welfare Schemes Act on 07.08.2002 accepting the report/recommendation dated 23.10.2001 submitted by the Special Tahsildar.

g. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Harijan Welfare Schemes Act was published in the Tiruvallur District gazette on 19.08.2002 and subsequently, on 01.11.2002, an errata notification was issued to correct the boundaries of the land under acquisition, challenging which, the present writ petitions are filed."

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit justifying the acquisition proceedings.

4. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners filed W.M.P. Nos. 798 and 800 of 2017 for raising additional grounds and W.M.P. Nos. 797 and 799 of 2017 for amendment of the existing prayer in the writ petitions. The said W.M.Ps. were allowed by this Court on 31.01.2017, however, making it clear that allowing the said W.M.Ps. shall be without prejudice to the case of the respondents.

5. Heard Mr. Thanka Sivan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. P. Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points:

"a. The lands under acquisition are classified as wet lands and therefore, they cannot be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the Adi Dravida community.

b. There are alternative poramboke lands (the details of which were furnished across the Bar), which should have been chosen by the Government.

c. In terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in R. Pari v. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another, 2006 (3) L.W. 1000 : (2007














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top