2025:MHC:2927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 25.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

W.A.No.2206 of 2023

1. The State Of Tamilnadu

Rep by the Secretary to Government,

Adi Dravida welfare Department,

Fort St.George, chennai-600 009 and

2 Others

2. The District Collector

Tiruvannamalai, T.S.District.

3. The Special Tahsildar

Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar

welfare, Polur, T.S.District

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. K.R.Lakshminarasimhan

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

Writ Appeal has been instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Writ Appeal has been instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,To set

aside the Order dated 13.12.2021 made in WP.No.13630 of 2021.

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sriram

JUDGMENT

S.M.Subramaniam,J.

Present Intra-Court Appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 13.12.2021 in WP.No.13630 of 2021.

I.FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. State preferred present appeal mainly on the ground that subject land was acquired to provide free house sites to houseless poor Adi Dravidars under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). Acquired land was sub-divided as Survey No.256/1 out of the patta lands of respondent and classified as “Adi Dravidar Natham”, and house site pattas were given to 86 Adi Dravidar people, who had no house or house site on 13.11.2007. The process of land acquisition was completed long before. However, present writ petition came to be instituted in the year 2021, pursuant to order passed by Writ Court in W.P.No.36502 of 2007, dated 04.07.2019.

II. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT/STATE:

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that respondent was treated as an absentee pattadar and did not pay land revenue properly for each fasli. According to information gathered in local enquiry, notices were sent to Mr.Chandrasekar and Mr.Kumar, which were returned as “No such person”. Land Acquisition Proceedings have been finalized, as interested parties were ex-parties and an Award was passed on 29.10.2007. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act was followed.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would oppose by stating that procedures contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act was not followed. Acquisition was made against respondent without issuing any notice to him. He was presumed as a dead person by the land acquisition officer. Therefore, entire acquisition proceedings ought to be declared as void. Once the acquisition became void, relief granted by Writ Court is in consonance with law.

5. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that respondent is represented by his power holder Mr.C.Balasubramanian, who is his friend. Through him, respondent is agitating the issues before Courts. Respondent was considered as a dead person by Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, he had not participated in land acquisition proceedings. Thus, writ order impugned is to be upheld.

6. Considered the rival submissions made by the parties to the lis on hand.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

7. Admittedly, acquisition proceedings were initiated under Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978. Acquisition proceedings were initially commenced in the year 1996. 4(1) notification issued came to be challenged by the respondent herein in W.P.No.4977 of 1998. The said notification was quashed by Writ Court in order dated 05.12.2003. Thereafter, acquisition proceedings were initiated and respondent received a notice on 31.07.2000 in Form No.1, under Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer. At the relevant point of time, respondent was employed in Bangalore and he sent a letter dated 05.08.2000 to Land Acquisition O