Tenants in possession are entitled to notice in land acquisition proceedings, and failure to provide such notice invalidates the acquisition process.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.03.2018 in W.P. No. 36632 of 2003 on the file of this Court.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.03.2018, made in W.P. No. 36632 of 2003, allowing the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellants under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity).

2. The respondents' father, by name R. Krishnan, was the cultivating tenant in respect of the property comprised in S. No. 39/2 and 41, Sivadi Village, Dharmapuri District, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It is admitted that the respondents' father filed an application to include his name as cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. The learned Special Government Pleader has not filed any document doubting the validity of the proceedings of the Record Officer dated 06.12.1980, including the name of the respondents' father in the Tenancy Records. It is the case of the respondents that their father died and thereafter, the respondents, who are the writ petitioners, are entitled to succeed to the property as cultivating tenants. It is not the case of appellants that the respondents are not cultivating tenants as defined under Under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. A person in possession as a tenant is entitled to be in possession till he is evicted by due process.

3. The property comprised in S. No. 39/2 and 41, Sivadi Village, Dharmapuri District, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was required for a Harijan Welfare Scheme. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under the Act for acquisition. Ultimately, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 26.11.1999. The grievance of the respondents/writ petitioners is that no notice was issued to the writ petitioners before issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is also stated that no notice was also issued to the writ petitioners before passing the Award fixing compensation for the land. Therefore, the respondents filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 36632 of 2003 challenging the acquisition proceedings.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the writ petitioners, who are interested, are entitled to notice and that the acquisition proceedings without issuing notice to the tenants is invalid, allowed the writ petition. As against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, the above Writ Appeal is filed.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants made the following submissions:

(a) The acquisition proceedings were initiated as against the landlord/owner by issuing a notice for enquiry under Section 4(2) of the Act. Since the writ petitioners have not raised any objection regarding acquisition, it is stated that the acquisition culminated in issuance of final notice under Section 4(1) of the Act and determination of compensation for the land.

(b) However, it is admitted that, at no stage of proceedings initiated under the Act, notice was issued to the writ petitioners.

(c) The writ petitioners filed a Civil Suit originally in O.S. No. 50 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dharmapuri, for declaration of their possessory right and consequential reliefs. Since acquisition proceedings can be challenged only before this Court and no suit can be entertained by the Civil Court challenging the acquisition, the suit filed by the writ petitioners was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006. The writ petitioners filed yet another suit in O.S. No. 106 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, for permanent injunction, and the said suit was also dismissed relying upon the acquisition proceeding