Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Ganesh – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP No. 21365 of 2023 & WMP Nos. 20769 & 20770 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023
For the Petitioner:Mahaveer Shavaji for P. Venkateshan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 & R2: T. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader. R3, Rita Chandrasekar, R4 & R5, N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR&CE).
Locus standi of a tenant to challenge land acquisition proceedings for a public project and the applicability of injunction granted by the Civil Court to the government's acquisition of the land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Chennai Metro Rail Project - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 78 - Summary: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the final notice for enquiry issued by the District Revenue Officer for the acquisition of property for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The court held that the petitioner, a tenant, had no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings or the compensation deposited in the bank account of the temple. The court emphasized the need to evict encroachers for the completion of the public welfare project and highlighted the injunction granted by the Civil Court as not applicable to the government's acquisition of the land for the public project.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the final notice for enquiry issued by the District Revenue Officer for the acquisition of property for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The petitioner, a tenant, claimed occupation of the subject premises and disputed the acquisition proceedings initiated against the landowners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a tenant, had no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings or the compensation deposited in the bank account of the temple. The court emphasized the need to evict encroachers for the completion of the public welfare project and highlighted the injunction granted by the Civil Court as not applicable to the government's acquisition of the land for the public project.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings, the eviction of encroachers for the completion of the Chennai Metro Rail Project, and the applicability of the injunction granted by the Civil Court to the government's acquisition of the land for the public project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a tenant, had no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings or the compensation deposited in the bank account of the temple. The court emphasized the need to evict encroachers for the completion of the public welfare project and highlighted the injunction granted by the Civil Court as not applicable to the government's acquisition of the land for the public project.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the final notice for enquiry and directed the petitioner to evict the property with immediate effect. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the respondents to call for the records of the second respondent letter Na.Ka.No.008/N.A/C.M.R.S/2020 dated 17.10.2022 to quash and consequently dispose the petitioner''s representation dated 25.05.2023.)
1. The final notice issued by the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Chennai Metro Rail Project in proceedings dated 17.10.2022, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Pertinently, the impugned final notice for enquiry has not been issued to the writ petitioner, who is admittedly a tenant, in occupation of the subject premises, sought to be acquired for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The notice, which is under challenge, has been communicated to the owner of the property i.e., Kabaleeswarar Temple.
3. Even as per the petitioner, he is not the owner and he is in occupation of the subject premises, which is sought to be acquired for Chennai Metro Rail Project. The petitioner states that he paid an advance of Rs.1 lakh to the landlord and pay a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, which was increased to Rs.10,000/- subsequently. The petitioner further states that the property tax and other amenities are stand in the name of Janarthana Charitable Trust and the Trustee Mr.S.Balaji died on 05.05.2014.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, submitted the files to establish that the subject property is belonging to the fourth respondent-Temple and the temple lands were acquired for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Project and the compensation amount was determined as Rs.42,15,89,646/- and the said amount has been already deposited in the Bank Account of the fourth respondent-Temple on 08.02.2023 itself.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, reiterated that the compensation amount has already been deposited in the Bank Account of the fourth respondenttemple and therefore, the petitioner and few other encroachers are attempting to disrupt the public project under the Chennai Metro Rail Project.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not an encroacher and he is a tenant under Janarthana Charitable Trust. However, the claim of the petitioner may be against the landlord and certainly in the present case, he cannot claim any right in respect of the acquisition proceedings or the compensation deposited in the Bank Account of the fourth respondent-Temple.
7. If at all the landlord has not refunded the advance amount or otherwise, the petitioner has to sue the landlord, but certainly has no locus to question the acquisition proceedings initiated against the land owners. Moreso, as per the records, the fourth respondent-Kabaleeswarar Temple is the owner of the property and the Land Acquisition Officer verified the said title of the temple and deposited the compensation in the Bank Account of the temple.
8. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were finalised and if at all any dispute exists between the Janarthana Charitable Trust and the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to claim his right against the Trust concerned and certainly not against the temple or against the Land Acquisition Officer or the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. The process of acquisition had already been concluded and the compensation determined was paid to the temple.
9. All the persons, who all are in illegal occupation of the acquired land are liable to be evicted for the purpose of completing the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The Public Welfare Project cannot be stalled unnecessarily, which would cause irreparable financial loss to the State Exchequer. By investing huge amount, the Government is providing public infrastructural facilities for the benefit of the people and Chennai Metro Rail Project, being a prime Project, cannot be stalled on account of encroachments or disputes between
