Back
quashes single judge order, upholds 1978 land acquisition for NH bypass
A Division Bench of the has set aside a single judge's order that had kept alive the possibility of releasing land acquired in 1978 for a national highway bypass, ruling that the acquisition was complete and that the petitioners lacked to challenge it.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, also flagged serious concerns over alleged fabrication of revenue records and directed the District Collector to conduct a thorough probe.
A 40-Year-Old Acquisition and a
The dispute traces back to , when the State initiated proceedings under the , to acquire 21.22 acres in Pattanam village, Coimbatore, for forming a bypass on NH-47. Among the acquired lands were 4.06 acres in Survey No.183/1 belonging to Ramasamy Konar and his brother Kalimuthu Konar. An award was passed in , compensation was paid—Rs. 5,117.50 to Ramasamy Konar without protest—and possession was handed over to the . A portion of the land was used to build the road, while the remainder was kept vacant.
Forty years later, in , one V. Nagaraj filed a writ petition claiming that only 0.71 acres had been used and that Ramasamy Konar continued to hold the remaining 3.36 acres, for which no compensation was paid. Nagaraj asserted that Ramasamy Konar had bequeathed the land to him via a will executed in , making him the rightful owner. On the death of Ramasamy Konar in , Nagaraj sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under (the New Act).
The single judge, noting that the State had failed to produce original acquisition files, directed the authorities to reconsider whether the land was still required and, if not, to release the property. The State appealed.
Arguments of and
The Additional Advocate General for the State argued that the entire acquisition was complete—possession taken, compensation paid, and the road formed. He contended that Nagaraj had no , as the will was unproven and the claim was a "stale" attempt to usurp government property. He further alleged that the petitioners had filed fabricated revenue records, manipulating entries in the UDR A-Register to show Ramasamy Konar as the owner when the original records classified the land as 'Government Poramboke' (Highway).
The Additional Solicitor General representing the supported the State, asserting that the unused portion was earmarked for future highway expansion and that no lapse could occur under the New Act.
In response, the petitioners' senior counsel argued that the single judge had correctly relied on the Indore Development Authority judgment to hold that the acquisition could lapse if both compensation and possession were lacking. They maintained that the absence of original files before the single judge justified the inference of non-completion.
Legal Analysis: No Lapse Under the New Act
The Division Bench rejected the petitioners' contentions, grounding its analysis in the Constitution Bench decision in
, which held that for a lapse under Section 24(2) of the New Act, both conditions—non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession—must be unsatisfied. The court found that here, at least one condition was satisfied: compensation was paid and possession was taken.
"The claim of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act is baseless and unsustainable,"
the bench observed.
The court also questioned the very basis of the claim.
"The deceased first petitioner is not the legal heir of Late Ramasamy Konar,"
it noted. The will remained unproven and no probate was obtained. Citing
and
, the court held that
"unless and until the will is proved in the manner known to law, the first petitioner cannot claim any right over the subject property."
"Novel Methods" to Usurp State Resources
The judgment took a stern view of the petitioners' conduct, describing the case as one where
"the provisions of
, intended to secure the rights of genuine landowners are sought to be misused to usurp State resources."
It pointed out that Ramasamy Konar himself never challenged the acquisition in his lifetime, and that Nagaraj—a stranger to the family—had appeared on the scene only after the land had lain vacant for decades.
The court further noted that the original district records, eventually produced before the appellate bench, revealed
"a calculated attempt and
played to lay a claim over Government Poramboke land by relying upon
."
The UDR A-Register produced by the petitioners had been tampered with, replacing the entry 'National Highway' in Column 12 with the name of Ramasamy Konar.
"From the above, it is evident and clear that the writ petitioners, with the connivance of certain persons in the department, have resorted to make a
,"
the bench added.
Probe Ordered into Missing Files and
The court also took note of the mysterious disappearance of the original acquisition files during the proceedings before the single judge. A status report had stated that the files were brought to the and then went missing—a development the single judge described as "startling."
The Division Bench directed the , to conduct a thorough enquiry into the disappearance of the files and the alteration of the A-Register. Based on the findings, the Collector must lodge a complaint against those involved in fabrication and manipulation of records before the law enforcement agency.
The Final Decision
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the single judge dated in W.P. No. 6802 of was set aside. The connected pending application was closed, and no order as to costs was passed.
The judgment sends a strong signal that stale claims based on unproven documents and alleged lapses will not be entertained, especially where governmental records establish a completed acquisition. The probe into document fabrication also underscores the court's determination to preserve the integrity of land records and public property.
