The court upheld the principle that only genuine land losers are entitled to employment benefits, rejecting claims based on fraudulent purchases made after a legally established cut-off date.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Since all six writ petitions raise similar claims and issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. It is evident from the facts stated in all the affidavits that the six petitioners had acted with a common intention to secure employment under the land given category from the 3rd Respondent, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL), Kagithapuram - a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking engaged in land acquisition for the expansion of its operations. The policy decision to acquire land for the establishment of TNPL Unit II in Manapparai Taluk was formally announced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 07.05.2013. However, preparatory activities for the project had commenced as early as the end of 2012.

4. The Petitioners are residents of either Manapparai or Marungapuri. With knowledge that lands in Periyappatti North and Mondipatti villages in Manapparai Taluk were likely to be acquired for the proposed TNPL project, they proceeded to purchase punja lands in those very villages. All the lands were purchased from two common vendors, namely, Mamundi and Karuppan. The 1^st and 6^th Petitioners are stated to have purchased 50 cents each, while the remaining Petitioners acquired approximately 25 cents each.

5. The following table sets out the particulars of each Petitioner, including the writ petition number, extent of land purchased, date of purchase, survey number, the village in which the land is situated, and the name of the vendor:-

6. A perusal of the above table would reveal that all the petitioners hail from neighbouring localities and had purchased the lands in June 2013 - barely a month after the policy decision was announced in the Legislative Assembly. The lands so purchased were punja lands, and no meaningful cultivation could have been undertaken thereafter. Notably, all purchases were made from the same two vendors. It is also admitted that the petitioners are not agriculturists by occupation. The sole motive behind the purchase appears to be to fraudulently claim employment in a public sector company under the category of land losers. Such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of a welfare policy that is intended to rehabilitate genuine agriculturists who lose both their land and their livelihood. This Court cannot countenance any attempt to subvert such a scheme through artificial claims based on orchestrated transactions.

7. When the Petitioners submitted their claims to the 3^rd Respondent, the 4^th Respondent, by the impugned letter dated 04.04.2016, rejected their representation and furnished the following response:-

“Please refer to your representation cited under reference (1) and the order passed by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court cited under reference (2). With respect to the order cited under reference (2), you are informed that the land owner should have been in possession of the acquired land for one year prior t