2021 Supreme(Mad) 773

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
Rasaniammal & Others – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tirunelveli & Others – Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 496 of 2016 & W.P. (MD) Nos. 6061 & 19091 of 2018 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 16941, 5930 & 5931 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2021

Point of law: ill-luck could have it on the basis of the present decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the law which was in her favour then has since been reversed and the attempt by her to take advantage of Section 24(2) as it interpreted then has now to be discountenanced and consequence of which, the Writ Petition filed by her in W.P.(MD) No.19091 of 2019 has been dismissed as not pressed. According to the learned Counsel, at least the petitioner may be given a last opportunity to convince the authority that her land has not been used for the specific purpose for which it was acquired and it was allotted to undeserving private respondents.

Headnote:

Cases Referred :

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Issue of Jurisdiction – All the three matters are in relation to the same acquisition proceedings initiated by the Acquisition Authority in respect of the subject property belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of grant of house patta to the members of the Adi-Dravidar community – According to the petitioner, she was not aware of the acquisition proceedings as the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 had not been properly served or brought to the notice of the petitioner – According to her, she had come to know about the proceedings only somewhere in 2011 and on the basis of the advice, she had approached Civil Court and filed O.S. before the Principal District Munsif Court, primarily to declare the acquisition proceedings as null and void. – Suit was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to declare the land acquisition proceedings as null and void. As against the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed appeal in A.S. before the Sub Court, which was also dismissed on the same ground – Petitioner, thereafter, filed a second appeal in S.A.(MD) before this Court and the same is pending

Finding of court: Petitioner having chosen a wrong remedy, she has to be held entirely responsible for the passage of more than two decades and therefore, she cannot now seek reconsideration of the entire issue at this distance of time. – Special Government Pleader would also submit that the land was in fact classified as Adi-Dravidar natham in 1991 itself and also that the acquisition proceedings were subjected to challenge by the so-called land owners in W.P.(MD) but the same was dismissed. – Therefore, the petitioner has lost her right to seek re-consideration of the entire issue, after the assignments were made more than two decades before. – As regards the private respondents are concerned, though notices have been served and acknowledged and the names have also been printed in the cause list, they are not represented by any Advocate and nor the private respondents have chosen to appear in person. – As regards the present Writ Petition is concerned, the petitioner completely claims ignorance of the acquisition proceedings initiated against her way back in 1992 and 1993 and she had appeared to have approached the Court only in 2011 after learning about the same then. – Even then, she did not choose to approach proper remedial forum but continued her wrong pursuit in three successive civil proceedings, by filing a suit and then first appeal and thereafter Second Appeal fruitlessly resulting in passage of more than two decades. – Now on her behalf an extraordinary request has been made to this Court to cancel the assignment given to the private respondents 3 to 19 which assignment was given way back in 1997. From 1997 and till date, much water must have flowed under the bridge and this Court is not informed as to what is the exact status of the land owned by the petitioner and acquired by the authorities as on date. – Therefore, this Court initially had its own misgiving about the issuing any direction as requested by the learned Counsel. – Counsel for the petitioner persuaded this Court that the petitioner being a illiterate lady was misled into filing of civil cases and in the absence of proper guidance and advice, she had last her valuable opportunity of approaching the proper forum towards challenging the acquisition proceedings. – As ill-luck could have it on the basis of the present decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the law which was in her favour then has since been reversed and the attempt by her to take advantage of Section 24(2) as it interpreted then has now to be discountenanced and consequence of which, the Writ Petition filed by her in W.P.(MD) has been dismissed as not pressed. – According to the learned Counsel, at least the petitioner may be given a last opportunity to convince the authority that her land has not been used for the specific purpose for which it was acquired and it was allotted to undeserving private respondents. – Court, in consideration of the above passionate request placed on behalf of the petitioner, is of the view that no prejudice or legal injury would be caused to any one if the second respondent is directed to consider the issue only on the aspect of whether these private respondents namely respondents 3 to 19 were entitled to the grant of house pattta on the basis of the scheme formulated while acquiring the lands from petitioners and other owners. – At the same time, this Court is not inclined to set aside the assignment made to these private respondents vide proceedings, though these private respondents had been served and not responded.

Result: Writ Petition Dismissed