AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for issuing a mandamus, directing the respondents to allot an alternative land to
the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition of the petitioner''s land and house situated at New No. 236 (Old No. 597), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Periyakurichi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Neyveli - 607 802, Cuddalore District by the 3rd respondent for the benefit of the 1st respondent.
The writ petition was admitted on 30.01.2006. During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died and the petitioners 2 to 5 are
substituted as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner by order dated 15.10.2009. The legal representatives are now pursuing the writ
petition.
It is the case of the petitioners that the original petitioner purchased a land in the year 1986 measuring 2400 sq.ft. in Survey Nos. 240/4, 240/5B
and 240/6A2 situated at New No. 236 (Old No. 597), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Periyakurichi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Neyveli - 607 802,
Cuddalore District and he constructed a house by availing housing loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During the year 2000, the
3rd respondent issued 4(1) notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the original petitioner''s property for
acquisition for the purpose of extension of mining activities of the 1st respondent. By order No. 2 of 2001 dated 20.06.2001, the land with house
was acquired and possession was handed over to the 1st respondent. According to the original petitioner, during the acquisition proceedings, the
respondents assured the original petitioner to allot an alternate plot of the land and the respondents paid compensation in respect of the building,
but not for the land acquired.
The original petitioner was employed in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Neyveli and he
was allotted a residential quarters owned by the 1st respondent and he was staying in the house with his family from 1990 and he was due to retire
by the end of July 2006. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation he was bound to vacate the said quarters and to shift his residence to
his own house, which was acquired in favour of the 1st respondent and therefore he was entitled to get an alternate housing plot to enable him to
construct a dwelling house for his family.
The original petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents and requested to allot an alternate land for constructing a house in
lieu of the land and house already acquired on behalf of the 1st respondent, of which possession was also taken. On 11.07.2002, the 3rd
respondent issued a letter and stated that his request was considered and recommended to the 1st respondent and the original petitioner was
advised to meet the 1st respondent to get an alternate land. The original petitioner visited the 1st respondent''s office several times and the 1st
respondent insisted to produce the family card as proof of residence in the acquired land and building for 5 years before the date of issue of
Section 4(1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The original petitioner having resided in the quarters allotted by the 1st respondent was having ration card only with the said address. However,
he was having other details to establish his ownership and also stated that he will retire in the year 2006 and thereafter he has to shift his residence
to a new house. Since the original petitioner had not produced the ration card, his claim was not considered by the 1st respondent. Hence this writ
petition was filed with the above said prayer.
The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the scheme for allotment of alternate site approved by the Government, contain
clauses that a person who is seeking alternate land for acquiring his house site, is bound to produce certain documents, including the ration card to
show that he was residing with his family as proof of residence in the acquired land for 5 years before the date of issue of 4(1) notification, and the
original petitioner having not produced the ration card, his claim was not considered.
A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 5, who are the legal representatives of the original petitioner stating that due to the
employment of the deceased petitioner in the Society, he was allotted a quarters and therefore he was not having a ration card as required to be
produced by the 1st respondent as one can possess only one ration card. The original petitioner was having property tax receipts, electricity bill,
Government record etc., and as he was residing in the quarters with his family, the ration card and voters list contained the said quarters address
and the said impediment in not producing the ration card as required, cannot be put against the original petitioner as in quarters he can reside as
long as he was in employment and not thereafter. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the Village Administrative Office has also given a
certificate stating that the petitioners are not having any other land to construct a house for their residence and 39 neighbouring land owners, whose
lands were also acquired along with the original petitioner''s land under the same award, have been provided with alternate house site and the
petitioners being legal representatives of the original writ petitioner, whose land was also acquired, is entitled to get an alternate house site as it was
given to other land losers, and not allotting a plot to the deceased petitioner is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, as well as the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
The learned counsels have argued the case on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit, the counter affidavit and the reply affidavit as
well as the scheme framed by the 1st respondent, which was approved by the Government.
It is not in dispute that the land of the deceased petitioner was acquired and 39 similarly placed persons were already allotted alternate site.
The scheme for providing alternate site for the persons, who lost their house property for the development of the NLC requires certain proof to be
produced. According to the Scheme, following documents are necessary: (1) voters list, (2) ration card, (3) property tax receipt, (4) electricity bill
and (5) Government records. The original petitioner was having documents other than the voter list and ration card. For not having the voters list
and ration card with the address of the acquired house is due to the reason that he was residing in the quarters owned by the 1st respondent
because of his employment in the Society and he was due to retire in the year 2006 beyond which he could not continue in the said quarters.
Therefore insisting production of voters list and ration card from the original petitioner to show that he was residing in the acquired land, was
not proper as he was having other documents. The original petitioner cannot reside in two houses at the same time and as he was residing in the
quarters due to his employment. It is common knowledge that once an employee attains the age of superannuation, he has to vacate the quarters
and shift his residence. The only residential house available to the original petitioner having been acquired and alternate site having been provided to
all 39 other similarly placed persons, whose lands were also acquired in the neighbourhood scheme, the deceased petitioner alone cannot be
discriminated, particularly when it is an admitted fact that his only land with house was acquired by the 1st respondent and the Village
Administrative Officer also issued a certificate to that effect, which is not disputed by the respondents. The scheme provides for production of
more than one document to prove the genuine claim of the person claiming the benefit and if a person, who is otherwise eligible to claim allotment is
not able to produce one or two proof due to bonafide reason, he should not be denied of the benefit, once the bonafide is proved.
Thus the petitioners have made out a case for issuing mandamus. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners 2 to 5,
who are the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner, without insisting for the production of the ration card and voters list for 5 years
prior to the acquisition. The respondents can rely on the other documents produced by the petitioners as stated above. The 1st respondent is
directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioners 2 to 5 as it was allotted to 39 others, within a period of four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.