2018 Supreme(Mad) 4096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
B. Sridharan & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1079 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 14039 of 2016
Decided On : 02-11-2018
For the Appellants :K.M. Valsala, R. Annamalai, Advocates
For the Respondents:T.L. Thirumalaisamy, CGSC, S.R. Rajagopal, Addl. Advocate General assisted by N. Manikandan, Govt. Advocate, C. Franco Louis, R. Parthasarathy, Advocates
Headnote:
Right to Information Act,2005 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) - Section 5-A - Section 6 - Section 30 and 31(2) - Section 12(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 – Constitution Of India - Article 226 –Land – Legal Heirs - This Writ Appeal is filed by writ petitioners challenging order passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P. filed by appellants/writ petitioners praying to quash G.O., Public (Tourism 1) Department, as published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, in respect of writ petitioners lands, comprised in Village, measuring an extent of 55 cents, and consequently declare all subsequent proceedings including sale of said lands in name of seventh respondent as null and void and direct respondents to restore possession of said lands to appellants/writ petitioners – Held, When acquisition in respect of connected land in Survey Number was challenged before Court, Division Bench, in Writ Appeal, had an occasion to peruse entire records including original Award and by judgment said Writ Appeal was dismissed - After lapse of 40 years, since original Award is not available, and only copy of Award is available, appellants/writ petitioners cannot take advantage of same - Hence, submission of learned counsel appearing for appellants that there is no original Award, is rejected - Question Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv) are answered accordingly - General public was also aware of disinvestment scheme and only as per recommendations of Disinvestment Commission, restructuring/disinvestment of ITDC Hotel property was taken up - Temple Bay Ashok Beach Resort was included in first Tranche of disinvestment - Thus, disinvestment scheme of Temple Bay Ashok Beach Resort of third respondent-ITDC came in, arising out of Government Policy and it is not open to challenge, as it does not violate any law and is not mala-fide - Policy decision of Government to disinvest, is not open to be challenged - This is clear from decisions relied on by learned counsel for third respondent – Appeal Dismissed.
R. Subbiah, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.27477 of 2016 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners praying to quash G.O.Ms.No.1573, Public (Tourism 1) Department, dated 27.07.1979, as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 2, dated 30.07.1979 in respect of the writ petitioners' lands, comprised in S.No.99/3A at No.162, Mamallapuram Village, Chengalpattu District (now Kancheepuram District), measuring an extent of 55 cents, and consequently declare all the subsequent proceedings including the sale of the said lands in the name of the seventh respondent as null and void and direct the respondents to restore the possession of the said lands to the appellants/writ petitioners.
2. The case of the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, inter-alia, is as follows:
(a) In the Writ Petition, the third writ petitioner/third appellant has sworn the affidavit on behalf of all the other writ petitioners, stating that the writ petitioners are the legal heirs of Late A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar. Their grandfather Late A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and his three sons, Late T. Balaraman, Late T. Lakshmanan and Late T. Jagannathan jointly purchased a property comprised in S.No.99/3 at No.162, Mahabalipuram (Mamallapuram) Village, Chengalpattu District, within the Sub-Registration of Thirukazhikundram and within the Registration District of Madras-Chengalpattu, measuring an extent of 10 grounds (55 cents) from one Mrs.Amathulla Saleem, represented by her husband M.M. Saleem as her Power of Attorney, by a sale deed, dated 14.07.1964, registered as Doc.No.2809/1964 on the file of the Registrar, Madras-Chengalpattu.
(b) The third appellant's father Lakshmanan died on 10.05.1983 leaving behind his wife Gnanambigai (second appellant), the third appellant (son) and two daughters (appellants 4 and 5), as his legal heirs. Another son of late A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar, i.e. T. Balaraman died on 02.08.1988 leaving behind his wife B.Andal, his sons by name B. Sridharan (first appellant) and B. Mahendran as his legal heirs. Another son of T. Balaraman, i.e. B. Giridharan was missing from 1980 and his whereabouts are not known even as of today. Thereafter, B. Mahendran died on 21.05.2003 and Mrs. B. Andal died on 30.01.2011 and as of today, the first appellant alone is alive as the legal heir of Late T. Balaraman. Further, another son of Late Thiruvengada Mudaliar, i.e. T. Jagannathan died on 20.03.1995 leaving behind his widow J. Ramani (sixth appellant) and two daughters, being the eighth and ninth appellants and his son being the seventh appellant, as his legal heirs.
(c) The third appellant's grandfather A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar died on 24.11.1972 leaving behind the said three sons, among whom, one of them is the father of the third appellant and also two daughters, namely S. Ambika and T. Mallika. The said Ambika and Mallika executed jointly a release deed, dated 19.07.1973 registered as Doc.No.4393/1973 on the file of the Registrar, releasing their shares in the property of their father, in the name of their three brothers, with the result, all the appellants/writ petitioners became the absolute owners of the property in question.
(d) In the above situation, the third appellant/third writ petitioner came to know of the following facts in the year 2009 from the authorities concerned, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, from which he came to know that their above referred to land and some other lands belonging to other owners, were notified for acquisition by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the same was needed for public purpose, namely for expansion of Temple Bay and Shore Cottages at Mamallapuram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, by the India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC), the third respondent herein,