C. Puzhugandi vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent bearing Na.Ka. No. 13583/2011/M1, dated 12.07.2014 and consequential direction to the respondents 3 and 5 to convey 3.64 Acres of land in S. No. 298/2 of Pudupalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, after receiving the consideration determined by the fourth respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.T1/47325/2007, dated 23.05.2013 for implementing free house site patta scheme to Adi Dravidar People.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. In the year 1995, a petition was submitted before the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu through the then Rajapalayam Legislative Assembly Member seeking free house site patta in favour of 110 Adi Dravidar Community people. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent had made recommendation to the sixth respondent herein for taking necessary action. The land measuring an extent of 3 Acres and 64 Cents in S. No. 298/2 of Puduppalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk belonging to the Deity of Arulmigu Nachiyar Thirukkovil was identified by the sixth respondent for implementation of the scheme to give free house site pattas to the Adi Dravidar community people. Subsequently, the Trustee Committee passed a resolution bearing No. 9, on 29.02.1996 through which they have expressed their consent to the District Collector, the fourth respondent herein for conveying 3 Acres and 64 Cents of land in S. No. 298/2 of Puduppalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk. A letter intimating the consent of the trustee was also sent by the fifth respondent on 29.02.1996 to the Revenue Inspector, Rajapalayam. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., Sivagangai had inspected the property and had also recommended to the third respondent for conveying the property to the second respondent for implementation of scheme to grant free house site pattas to the needy people. Subsequently, the first respondent herein by Government letter No. 10, dated 11.01.2000, had granted permission to the third respondent herein to sell the property at the rate of 150% of the value to be determined by the Private Negotiations Committee formed by the fourth respondent herein.

When the matter stood thus, one K.R. Subramaniya Raja had filed a suit in O.S. No. 424 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur as against the fifth respondent herein seeking for a decree directing the defendant/5th respondent herein to execute valid sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of him. After hot contest, the said suit was dismissed on 06.04.1999. As against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, a first appeal in A.S. No. 28 of 1999 was filed by the said K.R. Subramaniya Raja and the said appeal was allowed and decree was granted in favour of the said K.R. Subramaniya Raja. Hence, the fifth respondent had filed a Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) No. 1576 of 1999 and the same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. Due to the pendency of said civil proceedings, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land had been stalled. After the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1576 of 1999, the fifth respondent by his letter dated 17.05.2010 had requested the third respondent to pass necessary orders to enable the fifth respondent to transfer the property to the fourth respondent by way of sale. After completing all the formalities, the fourth respondent had fixed the market value of the property at the rate of Rs. 46,000/- per Acre and requested the third respondent to pass orders by his proceeding dated 30.03.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner herein, who had given representations to the authorities on behalf of the villagers, aggrieved against the inaction on the part of the authorities/respondents 1 to 6 herein had filed W.P.(MD). No. 1691 of 2009 seeking for a mandamus directing the fourth respondent District Collector to initiate proceedings to acquire land/property by publishing in the District Gazette a notice under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. In view of the specific stand taken by the third respondent herein on 15.11.2011 seeking the fourth respondent to inform the present market value of the land proposed to be acquired, this Court vide order dated 29.04.2013 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 1691 of 2009 had directed the fourth respondent to proceed further and to issue directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In such circumstances, the Government of Tamil Nadu had increased the guideline value and on the basis of the same, the value of property was increased manifold and the fourth respondent on the basis of the same had fixed the value of the land at Rs. 2 lakhs per Acre on the basis of the value of the adjacent lands in S. No. 297/4 and 197/B/4B as has been fixed by the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar by his proceedings dated 23.05.2013. Therefore, on the same day, viz., on 23.05.2013, the fourth respondent had calculated the value of the property and fixed Rs. 11,26,551.71 towards the 150% of the value as agreed by the third respondent earlier and as per the approval granted by the first respondent and had intimated the same to the third respondent to give consent for the sale for the value referred above. When the villagers are eagerly waiting for grant of free house site pattas, the third respondent herein unilaterally without any instruction from the first respondent, had sent a letter bearing Na.Ka. No. 13583/2011/Ml dated 12.07.2014 to the fourth respondent herein stating that the Central Government had brought out the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As per the Act, if the land is in the city area, the compensation has to be fixed at 200% and if the land is in the rural area, the compensation has to be fixed at 400%. In the said letter, the third respondent had further stated that he had sought guidelines from the State Government for fixation of value of land through his proceedings. The third respondent herein had further intimated the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 12.07.2014 that only if the requisition body gives undertaking to pay 200% of the value of the land in city area and 400% of the value of the land in rural areas respectively, report can be sent to the Government for prior sanction of the Government. Aggrieved over the said communication, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

On appearance, the fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that first of all, the writ petition is not maintainable since the writ petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor an affected person of the land in S. No. 298/2 situated at Pudupalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk. The lands in Survey No. 298/2 consisting 3.64 acres punja land situated at Pudupalayam village belongs to the fifth respondent temple which is under the control of the H.R.&.C.E. Department. During the year 1996, the fourth respondent has decided that the above said land should be allotted for distribution to the Adi Dravidar Community people with a final consent of the Commissioner of H.R.&.C.E. Department on payment of the cost of land as per the guidelines stipulated by the department. In such circumstances, one K.R. Subramanya Raja has filed a suit in O.S. No. 424/1997 against the fifth respondent in respect of the said land and sought relief of specific performance claiming that he had purchased the said property. But, the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 06.04.1999. As against the said order, the said K.R. Subramanya Raja filed an appeal in A.S. No. 28 of 1999 and the same was allowed in his favour. Thereafter the fifth respondent filed S.A. No. 1576 of 1999 before this Court which was allowed on 10.11.2009 by confirming the order passed in the Original Suit and decided the said property belongs to the fifth respondent temple. In view of the pendency of the civil proceedings, the process of acquisition of the said lands and subsequent alienation of the same to the Adi Dravidar Community people, between H.R.&.C.E. Department and the District-Collector, Virudhunagar and also the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department has again commenced only in the year 2010 onwards. Earlier, the Private Negotiation Committee of the fourth respondent has fixed a market value of the said land in the year 2010 as more than 150% of the market value. However the said price was not accepted by the third respondent as if the rate of Rs. 46,000/- shown as market price of the said property is not the real value of the said property. Subsequently, the third respondent vide proceedings dated 12.07.2014 addressed to the fourth respondent has requested for land acquisition and alienation in respect of the said property under the H.R.&.C.E. Act Section 34 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Subsequently, the third respondent issued another proceedings to the fourth respondent dated 24.3.2015 stating that the land should be acquired and further proceedings to alienate the same should be taken fixing the initial value at 250% of the market value and if there is any difference which arises, the same can be fixed by the Government. Thus the correspondence is being exchanged between the District Collector and the H.R.&.C.E. Department and the same is still pending. While so, the writ petitioner is black mailing the department under the guise of helping the Adi Dravidar Community people even though he has not been authorized by any one but has been claiming himself as a representative. Further, the writ petitioner has even made attempts to trespass and grab the property of the temple. Hence, the fifth respondent was constrained to lodge a complaint against the writ petitioner before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam on 20.08.2015. That apart, the fifth respondent also filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 379/2014 before the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur against the writ petitioner. In the said suit, I.A. No. 2017/2014 was also filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same was also ordered by the learned Judge by order dated 10.11.2014. The said suit is still pending. Thus, it is clear that the writ petitioner has no locus standi. Now, by letter dated 03.09.2015, the third respondent has issued another proceedings to the District Collector, Virudhunagar for alienation of the said land. Thus, they sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 1996 itself a consent was given by the Trustee Committee of the fifth respondent temple to the Revenue Inspector of Rajapalayam to issue free house site patta in respect of the land situated in Survey No. 298/2 of Pudupalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk. Subsequently, since one K.R. Subramanya Raja had filed a suit in O.S. No. 424 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputtur as against the fifth respondent temple, no action was taken to issue free house site patta. Now the civil proceedings have reached finality in S.A. No. 1576 of 1999 by judgment dated 10.11.2009. Hence, as on date, the land measuring an extent of 3 Acres and 64 Cents in Survey No. 298/2 belongs to the fifth respondent temple. At this juncture, though originally in the year 1996, the Trustee Committee had given consent to convey the land, the first respondent herein by Government letter No. 10, dated 11.01.2000, had granted permission to the third respondent herein to convey the property at the rate of 150% of the value to be determined by the Private Negotiations Committee formed by the fourth respondent herein and the rate was also fixed as early as in the year 2000. While so, now the present communication has been sent by the third respondent to the fourth respondent to fix the compensation at the rate of 200% if the land is in city area and fix the compensation at the rate of 400% if the land is in the rural area so as to alienate the property. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the said communication dated 12.07.2014 and consequential direction to the respondents 3 and 5 to convey the land measuring 3.64 Acres in S. No. 298/2 of Pudupalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, after receiving the consideration determined by the fourth respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.T1/47325/2007, dated 23.05.2013 for implementing free house site patta scheme to Adi Dravidar People.

Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 submitted that first of all the petitioner is not a beneficiary under the scheme and therefore, he has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition. No doubt in the year 2013, the fourth respondent had calculated the value of the property and fixed Rs. 11,26,551.71 towards 150% of the value as agreed by the third respondent earlier and as per the approval granted by the first respondent and had intimated the same to the third respondent to give consent for the sale for the value referred above. Subsequently, since the Central Government had brought out the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, prescribing the compensation as 200% if the land is in the city area and 400% if the land is in the rural area, pursuant to the same, now, the respondents have exchanged the correspondence to fix the value of the property as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to convey the property and once the land value is fixed as per the new Act, the land will be alienated and free house site patta will be issued to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the writ petition is premature in nature and thus he sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsels appearing on either side, I have perused the entire materials available on record. Firstly, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6, the petitioner is not a beneficiary under scheme, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition. Secondly, the impugned order is only an internal communication exchanged between the respondents and further, the process of acquiring the land to issue house site patta to the beneficiaries under the scheme is on the move. Therefore, I find absolutely no valid ground to entertain the Writ Petition as the prayer in this writ petition itself is premature in nature and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.