IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
Mrs.Ranganayakiammal - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No.5169 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.6343 & 25939 of 2018 of 2018
Decided on : 28-01-2019
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 - Section 5 - Railways Act, 1989 - Harriman Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 - Section 4 - Acquisition of Land - Challenging the above said notification - Taking possession of land - Even though by virtue of Section 5 of the Act, after publication of notification under Section 4(1) of Act land vested absolutely with Government free from all encumbrance there is no specific provision enabling District Collector or any other authority to take possession of land from the land owner - By virtue of Section 5 of the Act Government may acquire title over such land but they have no power to take possession from petitioner - There is no specific provision in the Act for taking possession of the land unlike in Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, Railways Act, 1989 and in the absence of any enabling provision for taking possession under Act 31 of respondents cannot take possession of land from the petitioner – Held, Apart from that acquisition proceedings were completed as early as in year 1997 and thereafter possession was also taken by respondents and respondents are now taking steps to construct multi-storied tenements to provide housing to houseless poor persons belonging to community - Therefore in the said factual scenario, after lapse of more than 20 years, now it is not open to petitioner to claim that possession of land has not been legally taken from him – Further writ petition filed by petitioner challenging acquisition proceeding was also dismissed by this court - In light of above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of considered view that writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laces also - So far as the next contention of the learned senior counsel regarding the change of purpose is concerned it is now made clear that even though land in question was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to 115 landless poor persons belonging to Scheduled Caste persons, now it has been proposed to put up multi-storied tenements on land in question and to provide tenements to 720 houseless poor persons belonging to scheduled castes community only - Thus, in considered opinion of this court instead of giving house sites, if multi-storied buildings are put up on land acquired more number of people will be benefited - As lands are being used only for providing housing for houseless poor persons belonging to community. there is no change of purpose as contended by petitioner - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking possession of the land measuring 4.54 Acres equivalent to 1.88.08 Hectares in S.F.No.296/2 of Kuniyamuthur Village of Coimbatore Taluk and District, acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act and from constructing any building thereon by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (sic) and for a direction to the respondents for return of the land.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be owner of the land measuring about 4.64 Acres [1.88.0 Hectares] comprised in S.F.No.296/2 of Kulathupalayam Village, Kuniyamuthur in Coimbatore Taluk and District. He had a proposal to set up a stone crushing industry on the land in question and obtained a license for the same. In the year 1997, the respondents had taken steps to acquire the land in question under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [in short Act 31 of 1978] and issue a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 was also issued to the petitioner and he had raised objection for acquisition of his land. Thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had been issued on 02.07.1998. Challenging the above said notification, he had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17198 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by this court on 27.11.2006. In the mean time, Award had been passed by the 3rd respondent on 12.03.1999 in Award No.6 of 1998-99. Challenging the award, he had filed an appeal, but, he could not persuade the same on account of his old age and inability. But, he was not paid the award amount till date. Even though the notification was issued in the year 1998, the possession of the lands were also not taken from the petitioner. Even though by virtue of Section 5 of the Act, after publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land vested absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrance, there is no specific provision enabling the District Collector or any other authority to take possession of the land from the land owner. By virtue of Section 5 of the Act, the Government may acquire title over such land, but, they have no power to take possession from the petitioner. There is no specific provision in the Act 31 of 1978 for taking possession of the land unlike in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, The Railways Act, 1989 and in the absence of any enabling provision for taking possession under the Act 31 of 1878, the respondents cannot take possession of the land from the petitioner.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that now the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is taking steps for constructing multi-storeyed building on the land in question. When the land in question was acquired for providing house sites to the landless poor adi dravidar community people, the respondents cannot transfer or use the land for constructing multi-storeyed buildings by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The land acquired for a specific purpose under a special enactment, the same cannot be used for any other purpose. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The 3rd respondent - Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Coimbatore, has filed his counter affidavit wherein he inter alia contended that the lands were sought to be acquired under Act 31 of 1978 and a notification under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 was published in Coimbatore District Gazette on 18.07.1998 and an award was also passed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the 4(1) Notification was dismissed on 27.11.2006. According to the 3rd respondent, the possession of the land in question was vested with the respondents and the land has now been transferred to the 4th respondent board for the purpose of constructing multi-storeye
Dr.M.Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India
Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. Delhi Improvement Trust [1957 SCR 1 : AIR 1957 SC 344]
Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072
R.Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu
Rangasamy and others v. District Collector, Perambalur District and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.