AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The matter arises under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme Act,
1978 (hereinafter referred to ""as the Act"").
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the notification dated 28.04.2001 issued by the first respondent u/s
4(1) of the Act and published in the Ramanathapuram District Gazette, dated 19.05.2001, in respect of the lands in survey No. 61/2 and 61/4,
Kusavankudi village, Ramanathapuram Taluk measuring an extent of 2.09.5 hectares.
The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the subject lands together with a larger extent was originally owned by
one Mr. Kasim and during the year 1966, the said Mr. Kasim settled the properties in favour of his son Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed by executing
inam settlement deed dated 14.06.1966, which was registered as document No:1543, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ramanathapuram; that from
the date of the settlement, the said Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed was in enjoyment of the property and paying the kist. The petitioner is stated to
have purchased the property comprised in Survey No. 61/2 and 61/4 measuring an extent 2.09.5 hectares from the said Mr. K. Syed Sahul
Hameed by sale deed dated 07.02.2002. That the said lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings under the Act for the provision of the
house sites to the Adi-Dravidar of the said village and a notice u/s 4(2) of the Act was issued to one Mr. K. Ahamed. According to the petitioner,
Mr. K. Ahamed is not the owner of the property. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notification issued u/s 4(1) was also published in the
name of Mr. K. Ahamed. That the petitioner came to know only after the compensation amount was determined and the said K. Ahamed also
gave a letter of objection under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Adi-Dravidar Welfare Schemes Rule 1979. It is stated that Mr.
K. Ahamed is not in India and he is not the owner of the land and he has no interest in the land and therefore, the authorities committed procedural
irregularity by serving notice on Mr. K. Ahamed; that no notice was served on the petitioner''s vendor Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed and that the
notice u/s 4(2) was also served by affixure in the residence of Mr. K. Ahamed at No. 4/124, Hussainya street, Vani village. On the above
grounds, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating that as he has purchased the property in 2002, he is also a person interested and
therefore, he is entitled to question the acquisition proceedings.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents are unsustainable
in law; that Mr. K. Ahamed was not the owner of the land and the notice u/s 4(2) of the Act was affixed in his residence stating that he refused to
receive the same and the said allegation is false, since Mr. K. Ahamed is not in the country and he is not the owner of the property. It is further
submitted that the petitioner''s vendor Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed is the owner of the property, pursuant to a inam settlement deed dated
14.06.1966 and he has been in enjoyment of the property and paying kist till date. Further, it is contended, even assuming that Mr. K. Ahamed is
considered as a person interested, the service of notice on the said person was not in accordance with the Rules. In the absence of service of
individual notice on the land owner, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. The encumbrance certificate for the period from 1988 and 2002
clearly shows that there is no entry in the name of Mr. K. Ahamed as the owner of the property. It is further submitted that during the pendency of
the writ petition, the said Mr. K. Ahamed, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner''s vendor was impleaded as the third respondent in
the writ petition and the third respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 23.06.2010, stating that notice u/s 4(2) was not either served on him or
any member of his family or on his brother Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed and as some of his family members would be always available in his
residence, there was no necessity for the staff of the respondent office to affix the notice issued u/s 4(2) in the door of his house. Therefore, it is
stated that the allegation that the respondents served notice u/s 4(2) of the Act is false and consequently, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.
The Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
1) T.M. Lakshmiah v. The Collector of Dharmapuri District and Ors. 2000 Vol 3 LW 517
2) Immaculate Heart of Mary Society Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare,
3) V. Devaraj, V. Sundararajan, V. Damodarasamy, Dr. V. Ramachandran and V. Lakshminarayanasami Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
4) V. Panchavarnam Pillai and Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2004 4 LW 8(SN)
5) Lakshmi v. The District Collector and Ors. 2006 3 LW 22(1) S.N.
6) M. Duraisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2007 2 CTC 465
7) M. Nagu and Others Vs. The District Collector and The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed would contend that the lands
comprised in survey No. 59/1A, 61/2 and 61/4, bearing patta No. 53 of Kusavankudi village was owned by Mr. Ahamed S/o. Kasim and the
petitioner has purchased the property only on 07.02.2002, after the notification for acquisition was published in the Gazette u/s 4(1) of the Act and
therefore, the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser cannot question the acquisition proceedings. Further, it is contended that Mr. K. Ahamed is
the registered holder of the land covered by acquisition and all notices were sent to him and since the land owner was not available in the village for
service of notice, the same was affixed on the door of his residence. Further, it is contended that the possession of the land has been taken over by
the respondents 1 and 2 on 24.03.2002 and patta has been issued to the beneficiaries on 30.03.2002 and the beneficiaries are constructing their
houses with the funds sanctioned by the Government. It is further contended that the Village Administrative Officer had affixed the notice on
09.12.2000, in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was Village Assistant of Kusavankudi village. That the manner of service of notice is
as per the procedure and no error can be attributed to the procedure adopted. It is further contended that the land owner Mr. K. Ahamed on
whom the notice was served by affixure has filed his objections to the acquisition on 29.08.2000. Therefore, it is submitted that the contention
raised by the petitioner is absolutely devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
This Court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the files relating to the acquisition proceedings, accordingly the file was
produced on 06.08.2000. I have also directed the Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner to peruse the files and he has also perused the same.
I have considered the submissions on either side and also perused the original file relating to the acquisition proceedings.
Admittedly, the petitioner herein was not the registered owner of the land on the date, when the notice u/s 4(2) was issued. After following the
procedure contemplated under the Rules, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 28.04.2001 and also published in the District
Gazette dated 19.05.2001. Admittedly the petitioner herein has purchased the land on 07.02.2002 much after the impugned notification.
Therefore, at the first instance, the petitioner does not have any locus-standi to question the acquisition proceedings being a subsequent purchaser.
It is stated that the possession of land has taken over, and pattas have been issued all the beneficiaries on 30.03.2002. Therefore, on these
grounds the writ petition is liable to be rejected. However, the Learned Counsel would strenuously contend that if notice has not been served on
the petitioner''s vendor, who is the owner of the land, the entire proceedings are vitiated and it is a nullity and the petitioner should cannot be non-
suited on the ground that he is a subsequent purchaser. The petitioner''s vendor is Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed and even as per the counter
affidavit, notice has been served on Mr. K. Ahamed, who is not the owner of the land and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
Perusal of the original files reveals that the patta No. 53 in respect of land comprised in survey No. 61/2 and 61/4 stand in the name of Mr.
Ahamed, S/o. Kasim not in the name of Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed this could be seen in page No. 25 of the file. It is seen that the notice in form
No. 1, dated 07.12.2000 issued by the second respondent proposing to acquire the said lands and calling upon the land owner to file his statement
of objections, if any and fixing the date of enquiry on 22.12.2000 was issued to Mr. K. Ahamed as the pattas stood in his name. The notice, which
was received by the Village Administrative Officer on 09.12.2000 and it was affixed in the residence of the pattadar at No: 4/124, Hussainya
Street. Two persons, one Mr. R. Sundaraj, S/o. P. Raman and Mr. K. Govindaraj, Village Assistant were witnesses for affixure of the notice
issued u/s 4(1). It is relevant to note that in the said notice an endorsement has been made by the Village Administrative Officer clearly stating that
the service is effected by affixure on the Pattadar. On receipt of the notice, which is affixed the acquisition proceedings had been taken and form-3
notice under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, dated 13.06.2001 was issued. In page Nos. 33 and 34 of the file the copy of the notice in form 3 is found and
there is an acknowledgment signed by Mr. K. Ahamed for having received the said notice. At page No. 35 of the file, it is seen that the said Mr.
Ahamed, S/o. Kasim has submitted his objections to the acquisition proceedings by contending that already an extent of 1 acre, 70 cents in survey
No. 404/12 has been acquired under the provisions of the Act and if the present lands are also acquired, he will be put to prejudice and therefore,
request for dropping the acquisition proceedings. The copy of the earlier land acquisition proceedings was stated to be annexed along with the
objections.
The file further reveals that the chitta and copy of the A-Register reflected the name of Mr. K. Ahamed as the owner of the property.
Ultimately, the second respondent submitted a report dated 10.01.2001 to the first respondent recommending for the acquisition of the said lands,
based on such recommendation, the impugned notification u/s 4(1) was published in the District Gazette on 19.05.2001. Thus on an after the
Gazette publication, the land in question vests with the Government free from all encumbrance. It is further seen from the file that individual pattas
to 45 beneficiaries have been granted by proceedings dated 30.03.2002. The copy of the lay out sketch prepared is also found in page No. 275
of the file. Thus after the proceedings attained finality, the petitioner has now sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings. As held supra, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings as he is admittedly, as subsequent purchaser.
The submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, if the acquisition
proceedings itself are vitiated the writ petition is maintainable.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in T.M. Lakshmiah v. The Collector of Dharmapuri District
and Ors. 2000 3 LW 517 and M. Duraisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2007 2 CTC 465. In the case of T.M. Lakshmiah, referred supra,
this Court quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no record in the file to show that the individual notice was sent or
served and service stated to be effected by the messenger on person residing in a different State without obtaining endorsement from the
concerned Village Officer or responsible person is a non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. In the case of M. Duraisamy, (supra) the
Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that on perusal of the records, it was established that
notice was not served on the erstwhile owner in whose name the revenue records stood and though the petitioner therein did not take steps to
change the revenue records, after he purchased from his vendor and when his vendor was not served with the notice, he had no occasion to
contest the acquisition proceedings.
In my view these decisions would not be applicable to the case on hand, since in the files, the revenue records did not stand in the name of the
petitioner''s vendor, but stood in the name of his brother Mr. K. Ahamed. The copy of the chitta and A-Register are found in the file at page No.
37 to 47 and these documents only reflect the name of Mr. K. Ahamed and not Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed. Further, the adangal extracts are
found from page 23 to 55 of the file, which also shows the name of Mr. K. Ahamed as the owner of the property. Therefore, the case on hand is
not one such case where there has been violation of procedure contemplated under the Rules. The Patta, Chitta, copy of the A-register and
Adangal do not reflect the name of the petitioner''s vendor. On the contrary, it is seen from the files, the register holder is Mr. K. Ahamed and the
said land owner has received in person the notice issued under Rule 5(1) and also submitted his objections on 29.08.2000. Therefore, the case
law relied on by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not in any manner to advance the case of the petitioner.
From the records, it appears that Mr. K. Ahamed was aware of the proceedings atleast from the stage of notice issued under Rule 5(1) and
contested the matter by submitting his objections. Infact, the third respondent Mr. K. Ahamed has admitted in the affidavit filed before this Court,
dated 23.06.2010, that the Patta stood in his name. Thus the third respondent who was the registered holder was in receipt of the notice issued
under the Act and also objected to the acquisition. Thus the plea raised by the petitioner that no notice was served cannot be countenanced.
Further, the right of the petitioner''s vendor over the property cannot be gone into at this stage. Admittedly, the brother of the petitioner''s vendor
was the registered holder and notices were issued/served in his name. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be expected to serve notice on
the person whose name was not entered in the Revenue records. This Court in 2008 WLR 632 A. Kaliyappan v. District Collector and Anr. while
dealing with a similar situation regarding service of notice held as follows:
11.It is true that the term ''owner'' is defined in Section 3(h) of the Act as under:
3(h) ""owner"" includes any person, who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any land or building, whether on his own account or on
behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to
receive the rent, if the land or building were let to a tenant.
However, unless and until in the Revenue records, the names are changed by mutation, the respondents cannot be expected to presume that some
other person will be the owner of the property as the original owner died.
At the revenue records stood in the name of the third respondent, notice was issued to the third respondent and he also submitted his objections.
Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner does not merit acceptance.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that on perusal of the files produced on 06.08.2010 by the learned
Government Advocate it appears to him that the signature of the third respondent Mr. K. Ahamed found in the affidavit dated 23.06.2010, and
that in form No. 3 and also the signature in the letter of objection dated 29.08.2001 are different and contrary to other signature. In my view, the
stand now taken is directly contrary to the stand taken in the writ petition. The case of the petitioner itself is that no notice was served on his
vendor Mr. K. Syed Sahul Hameed, who is the actual owner of the property and that Mr. K. Ahamed, third respondent herein has absolutely no
interest in the land in question. As stated above, the revenue records stood in the name of Mr. K. Ahamed and it is not the case of Mr. K.
Ahamed that he has not signed the acknowledgment for receiving the form-3 notice nor has disputed the objections submitted by him to the notice
received under Rule 5(1). Therefore, at this stage of the matter, the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard is not tenable.
Thus, in view of the above reasoning, it could hardly be stated that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under the
Act and Rules. Therefore, the respondents having placed sufficient materials and documentary evidence to prove the service of notice in form -1
by affixure in the residence in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was Village Assistant and the service of the form -3 notice on the
registered holder Mr. K. Ahamed, coupled with the fact that the registered land owner has also submitted his objections would establish that the
respondents 1 and 2 have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules and the same cannot be faulted.
In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.