After the completion of acquisition proceedings, the acquired lands absolutely vest with the Government, and any continued possession is considered trespassing. The Government has a duty to recover financial losses caused to public properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner till harvest of the paddy grown in the agriculture field of petitioner in S.Nos.60/1A, 60/1B, 60/3 and 60/A, situated at Valayamadevi Melpathi Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to consider grievances of the petitioner to return his lands under Section 101 of Right To Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act 2013.)

The writ on hand has been instituted to forbear the respondents and their subordinates from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner till harvest of the paddy grown in the agriculture field of petitioner in S.Nos.60/1A, 60/1B, 60/3 and 60/A, situated at Valayamadevi Melpathi Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to consider grievances of the petitioner to return his lands under Section 101 of Right To Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act 2013.

2. The petitioner states that he owns agricultural lands at Valayamadevi Melpathi Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District. The lands that belonged to the petitioner were acquired admittedly by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the benefit of the fifth respondent-Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Even after acquisition, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the subject property and has been cultivating the lands for many years. The acquisition was kept in cold storage for the past about 16 years. Thus acquisition proceedings were deemed to be lapsed under the New Acquisition Act of the year 2013.

3. The respondents suddenly entered into the agricultural lands and started damaging standing crops viz., paddy, which would be ripe for harvest in two months. The petitioner states that no notice was given to him and his protest to prevent the respondents from damaging standing crops went in vain.

4. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner claims that the unutilised acquired land is to be returned back to him, enabling him to continue cultivation.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that standing crops viz., paddy were mercilessly damaged by the respondents without even considering the fact that standing crops were ripe for harvest. Though the lands were acquired long back, the fifth respondent has not taken possession of the acquired lands and permitted the petitioner and other agriculturists for cultivating the same.

6. That being the factum, the sudden intervention and damaging standing crops caused unrest in that locality and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the acquired agricultural land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief to get back his agricultural land. The land was acquired for a meagre amount of compensation and the enhanced compensation agreed in a meeting convened before the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, was not paid to the agriculturists in time and even now the said compensation agreed i.e., Rs.25 lakhs per acre has not been settled in favour of the farmers in that locality. Thus, the fifth respondent is in the habit of violating their own promises and thus the present writ petition is to be considered.

8. The arguments advanced in respect of the environmental clearances from the concerned Ministry, Government of India, as advanced on behalf of the petitioner may not be relevant in order to consider the issues raised i