M. Rayappa Gounder vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development, The District Revenue Officer and The Land Acquisition Officer, Unit III, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

M.M. Sundresh, J.—This writ petition has been filed originally by the writ Petitioner M. Rayappa Gounder since deceased challenging the

order passed by the first Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 494, Industries Department, dated 25.09.1992 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884,

and the declaration passed u/s 6 of the said Act in G.O.(2D) No. 309, Industries Department, dated 25.11.1993.

Pending disposal of the writ petition, this writ petition was dismissed as abated, since steps were not been taken to bring on record the Legal

Representatives of the deceased/writ Petitioner. It is seen from the records that the original writ Petitioner, M. Rayappa Gounder died on

24.09.1999. The writ petition was dismissed for abatement on 17.03.2006. Thereafter, it was restored on 13.12.2010 by an order of this Court

and the Petitioners 1 to 3 herein have been substituted as Petitioners in the writ petition.

The writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners on the ground that an extent of 1.62 acres of land situated in Survey No. 150 (old Survey No.

697) of Ingur Village, 114-B, Perunthurai Taluk, Erode District, originally belonged to the deceased writ Petitioner M. Rayappa Gounder. It is

further stated in the affidavit that the deceased writ Petitioner, M. Rayappa Gounder was also called as Ramaiah Gounder. A contention has been

raised in the writ petition stating that notice u/s 5(A) has not been served on the original writ Petitioner. Another contention has been raised that the

Award has not been passed within a period of two years from the publication of the declaration u/s 6 and therefore, the entire proceedings would

lapse.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents 1, 3 and 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also produced the records.

From the Counter affidavit and the records produced, it is seen that the notification u/s 4(1) was published in the local tamil daily on 14.10.1992

and its substance was published in the local daily on 07.12.1992. An enquiry u/s 5A was conducted on 12.04.1993. The original writ Petitioner,

M. Rayappa Gounder did not appear in the enquiry and the proceedings u/s 5A(2) were also issued on him on 12.04.1993. Thereafter, the

declaration u/s 6 was passed in G.O.(2D) No. 309, Industries Department, dated 25.11.1993, the said declaration was published in the

Government Gazette on the very same day and thereafter in the local dailies on 10.12.1993 and 13.12.1993. The substance of the declaration was

published in the locality on 06.12.1993. The notice u/s 9(1) and 9(3) as well as Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was served to interested

person on 13.11.1995. The Award enquiry was conducted on 01.12.1995. The writ Petitioner did not appear in the Award enquiry. Thereafter,

the Award was passed on 05.12.1995.

The above said facts would indicate that notice has been sent and served on the writ Petitioner in the name of Ramaiah Gounder. It is seen that

even in the affidavit it has been mentioned that the Petitioner has got two names, one is Rayappa Gounder and another is Ramaiah Gounder. Since

the writ Petitioner''s name has been registered in the public revenue records as Rayappa Gounder, the notice has been sent to him and served on

him in the above said name. However, the original writ Petitioner did not appear in the 5A enquiry proceedings as well as in the Award enquiry. It

is further seen that the Award was passed within two years from the publication of the substance of the declaration. As narrated above, the

publication of the declaration was made in the local dailies only on 10.12.1993 and 13.12.1993 whereas the Award was passed on 05.12.1995.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contention of the Petitioners that the deceased writ Petitioner, Rayappa Gounder has not been

served either before the 5A enquiry proceedings or in the Award proceedings and it cannot be countenanced. It is also to be seen that the facts

narrated above would indicate that the Award has been passed within a period of two years.

Admittedly, the original writ Petitioner was in possession at the time of the filing of the writ petition. This Honourable Court has also protected

the possession of the original writ Petitioner by granting him an interim order. However, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, on the ground

that no steps have been taken to bring on the Petitioners herein subsequent to the death of the original writ Petitioner dated 17.03.2006,

possession has been taken by the Respondents 3 and 4 and the same has been transferred to the second Respondent. From the records produced

by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is seen that patta has also been changed in the name of the second Respondent. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that in view of the subsequent developments, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a dwelling house in the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that

the said house is still under the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners. If that is the case, it is for the Petitioners to approach the Respondents

for releasing the land. Inasmuch as the lands have already been handed over to the second Respondent and the patta has also been changed, the

Petitioner is at liberty to approach the second Respondent for the release of the house. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also produced a

letter dated 08.12.1998 sent by the first Respondent to the writ Petitioner, Ramaiah Gounder stating that it has been decided to release the land

acquired subject to the condition that the writ petition filed by the Petitioners has to be withdrawn. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners submitted that the Respondents will have to be considered the release of the land.

The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in pursuant to the said letter, an enquiry was conducted and the Petitioners herein

who have been impleaded subsequently are asked to come for the enquiry. However, they have refused to come stating that they have no right

over the property because they are not in possession of the property and they did not know anything about the pending of the case and therefore,

they are not ready and willing to come for the said enquiry. Based upon the said statement, the Village Administrative Officer has already given a

report to the fourth Respondent on 25.09.2001. Therefore, it is submitted that the request for the Petitioners cannot be considered.

The records produced by the learned Government Pleader would indicate that the enquiry was conducted after the death of the original writ

Petitioner during pendency of the writ petition. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed and the patta has been changed in favour of the second

Respondent.

In view of the transfer of the title in favour of the second Respondent, there is no power vested with the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 to consider

the request of the Petitioners to consider the question of releasing the land. However, taking into consideration of the fact that there is a dwelling

house, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the second Respondent seeking release of the said house. The Petitioners are directed to file an

appropriate application in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of the said

representation, the second Respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition

is disposed of. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not bar the second Respondent in considering the request of the Petitioners

for the release of the house which forms part of the acquired land.

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

This matter is listed today under the caption ""For Being Mentioned"" at the instance of the Petitioners.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the second Respondent has merged with the SIPCOT and therefore, the direction

issued by this Honourable Court will have to be made applicable to SIPCOT. In view of the said submissions, the order passed by this Court

dated 01.04.2011 is modified and the direction issued to the second Respondent is made applicable to SIPCOT.