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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
E. Sakthi – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries SIPCOT (Land Acquisition) Department and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 18030 of 2022 & W.M.P. Nos. 17356 & 17358 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Desinghu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: G. Krishna Raja, Additional Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct an inquiry under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to resolve disputes regarding compensation for acquired land.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Compensation Dispute - Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 - Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [COMPENSATION DISPUTE] - [Industrial Purpose Act, 1997, Section 9; Land Acquisition Act, Section 9] - The court addressed a compensation dispute arising from the acquisition of land under the Industrial Purpose Act, 1997. It emphasized the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct an inquiry under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to resolve disputes regarding compensation. The petitioner was granted liberty to produce necessary documents to establish their title for the determination of compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed ownership of a piece of land sought to be acquired under the Industrial Purpose Act, 1997. A dispute arose when another party made a claim for compensation for the same property. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging a summons issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking to quash the same and directing the officer not to take any action for issuing compensation until an enquiry was conducted after the final decision of the District Registrar.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner and another party both claimed ownership of the same property and that the Land Acquisition Officer had a duty to conduct an inquiry under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to resolve the compensation dispute. The court declined to interfere with the summons but granted the petitioner liberty to produce necessary documents to establish their title for the determination of compensation.

Issues: The issues involved the ownership and compensation for a piece of land sought to be acquired under the Industrial Purpose Act, 1997. The petitioner challenged a summons issued by the Land Acquisition Officer and sought to quash it, claiming that the officer should not take any action for issuing compensation until an enquiry was conducted after the final decision of the District Registrar.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Land Acquisition Officer had a duty to conduct an inquiry under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to resolve disputes regarding compensation. It declined to interfere with the summons but granted the petitioner liberty to produce necessary documents to establish their title for the determination of compensation.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the court declining to interfere with the summons issued by the Land Acquisition Officer but granting the petitioner liberty to produce necessary documents to establish their title for the determination of compensation. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of the 6th respondent call letter in Na.Ka.52/2012 dated 30.06.2022 and to quash the same and directing the 6th respondent not to take any action for issuing compensation of land in Patta No.1722 in Survey No.201/13, in revenue village of Mampakkam, Sriperumbathur Taluk and the 6th respondent to conducting the enquiry after the final decision of the 4th respondent as the file in Ref.No.3650/AA3/2022.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 6th respondent call letter in Na.Ka.52/2012 dated 30.06.2022 and to quash the same and directing the 6th respondent not to take any action for issuing compensation of land in Patta No.1722 in Survey No.201/13, in revenue village of Mampakkam, Sriperumbathur Taluk and the 6th respondent to conduct the enquiry after the final decision of the 4th respondent as the file in Ref.No.3650/AA3/2022.

2. Mr.G.Krishna Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the official respondents. Since no adverse order is being passed against the private respondent, notice to the private respondent is dispensed with.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land in Survey No.201/13, measuring an extent of 0.21 cents or 0.08.50 ares, which is situated at No.39, Mambakkam Village, Sriperampatur Taluk, Kanchipuram Distirct. The above said land is derived from his grandfather and he had executed a registered Settlement Deed, dated 29.10.2010 in favour of the petitioner. After the execution of said settlement deed, the patta and other Revenue Records were mutated in the name of the petitioner vide Patta No.1722 and also paid necessary charges towards the land. The said land is sought to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Authority under the Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 and the third respondent has issued proceedings vide letter Na.Ka.No.52/2012 F5 dated 08.11.2012. Thereafter, the third respondent conducted a meeting with the owners of the land with regard to the acquisition proceedings on 04.02.2022. On the said date, the petitioner also participated in the meeting, he came to know that the seventh respondent created a fabricated document in respect of the aforesaid property in order to grab the compensation under the land acquisition process. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint dated 20.06.2022 before the fourth respondent/District Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, seeking to conduct enquiry and to cancel the alleged fabricated Sale deed Doc.No.4515/1995, and the same was taken on the file of the fourth respondent as Ref.No.3650/AA3/2022. Since the fourth respondent/District Registrar has not conducted any enquiry on the petitioner's complaint, the six respondent/The Special Tahsildar has initiated proceedings vide Na.Ka.52/2012 and issued a letter dated 30.06.2022, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the fifth respondent/District Revenue Officer on 15.07.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property and the seventh respondent herein made a fraudulent document in Doc.No.4515/1995 in order to grab the property from the petitioner, for which, already the petitioner made a complaint before the fourth respondent/District Registrar to cancel the fraudulent document created by the seventh respondent. Meanwhile, the seventh respondent made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for claiming the compensation under the land acquisition process. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to conduct enquiry, when the document is put in question before the fourth respondent/District Registrar. Accordingly, he prays for passi

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