The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner may not be entitled to claim compensation for land gifted to a Local Authority if the petitioner purchased the land after the acquisition proceedings and after gifting the land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent and quash the impugned proceedings dated 14.05.2022 in Th.Ne.Ni.E/P.Ch.V/C.Ma.Va.A/A2/71/2022 of the first respondent rejecting the petitioner''s claim for compensation as the same is ultra virus, unconstitutional, perverse, arbitrary, biased, illegal and against all principles of law and natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay due statutory compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of his acquired lands forming part of roads/streets or any other common areas of Annai Nagar Layout situate in S.No.18/1A1, 18/1A1B, 18/22, 18/3A1B, 18/2A1 and 18/2A1B, Gonvidacheri Village, Wallaja Taluk, Vellore District acquired by the respondents for Bangalore-Chennai Expressway Project.)

1. The order dated 14.05.2022 passed by the first respondent- Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The acquisition proceedings initiated and completed in respect of the subject properties, are not in dispute in the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 06.12.2021 to the District Revenue Officer to settle the compensation in respect of the portion of the land gifted by him to the Local Authority for the purpose of formation of road in the layout.

4. At the time of approval of layout, the lands for the formation of road are to be gifted to the Local Authority and in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioner gifted a portion of the land for formation of road in the layout in favour of the Commissioner, Sholinghur Panchayat Union by executing a gift in favour of the Commissioner, Sholinghur Panchayat Union. The petitioner is ceased to be the owner of the portion of the land, which has been gifted in favour of the Local Authority.

5. The petitioner has taken a stand that the land gifted by him was subsequently acquired and therefore, the gift lost its relevance and thus he is entitled entitled for the compensation for the portion of the land gifted by him to the Local Authority.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S. Rajasekaran vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [(2012) 2 CTC 324], wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19, it has been held as under:-

“18. In the present case, the lands before acquisition itself were in approved layout and certain areas have been shown as open space for public use. But, however when the acquisition of land took place for industrial scheme conceived by the SIPCOT, the purpose of use of the land got completely changed and even the areas which were reserved for open space is no longer relevant. The SIPCOT sold the lands to the private party in respect of the entire extent. Those lands were no longer kept as open space meant for a park or a street. After obtaining the land cost from the private companies, necessary compensation will have to be paid to the real owners.

19. In the present case, the local authorities for whose cause the Respondent SIPCOT is pleading, have not become owners of the land either by way of Gift Deed or by way of any operation of law. On the other hand, admittedly no Gift Deed has been executed in favour of the local body. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions referred to above, the local body does not become the owner of the land and it is merely a custodian. Further the Town and Country Planning Act is not an Act providing for land acquisition. Hence, the contentions raised by the Respondents cannot be countenanced by this Court.”

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Collector vs. S. Rajasekaran [2015 (3) LW 626]. Therefore, even af