P. Nirmala vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A. Kulasekaran, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Government Letter No.31281/Va.Ni./1(2)/2000-7 dated 06-09-2000 and quash the same

and consequently direct the respondents to exclude the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey NO.100/1 100/4 and 100/9-A measuring an

extent of 3 acres situate in Vengikkal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District in the guise of the land acquisition proceedings issued u/s 4 (1)

Notification in G.O.Ms. No.454, Revenue Department Dated 03-06-1998 culminated into Section 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.592 Revenue

(RAI) dated 13-07-1998.

Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the owner of agricultural lands comprised in Survey Nos. 100/1, 100/4 and 100/9-

A measuring in all 3 acres at Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and it was the only source of income for her family. The 1st respondent has

issued notification Under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act, 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act in G.O.Ms. No.454,

Revenue Department Dated 03-06-1998 invoking the urgency clause as provided under Sec.17 of the Act and sought to acquire an area of 236

acres of land including the petitioner for providing construction of office building under the master plan complex scheme for Tiruvannamalai District.

The enquiry under Sec. 5A of the Act was dispensed with, Sec.6 declaration was made under G.O.Ms.No.592 Revenue (RA-I) dated 13-07-

1998 which was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette - Gazette Extraordinary dated 13-07-1998. The petitioner was not

served with the notice for award enquiry but only after the award was passed, on 27-03-2000 the notice was received by the petitioner. It is also

alleged by the petitioner that she was compelled to sign the notice by putting anti date namely 24-03-2000. According to the petitioner, she is still

in possession of the property. It is further alleged that an extent of only 6 acres was utilised for the office building and the balance lands namely 230

acres are unutilised. The lands of the petitioner are located at the extreme southern end of 30 feet road which can be excluded without affecting the

scheme. The lands in Survey No. 98 to 100 belonged to 9 persons including the petitioner herein which were classified as Block No.13. The

petitioner has made a representation dated 23-07-1990 to exclude her land. The Joint Commissioner in his proceedings dated 25-02-2000 has

called for topo sketch and combined sketch and remarks of the District Revenue Officer. No order has been passed on her petition, hence she has

filed Writ Petition No. 6506 of 2000 challenging the acquisition proceedings which was dismissed on 12-07-2000 with a direction to dispose of

the petitioner''s representation. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of

the petitioner, hence this present writ petition.

Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the 1st respondent has excluded the lands of the other

owners which are abutting in the main road but refused to exclude the lands of the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed mechanically

without application of mind. Discriminating the petitioner amounts to violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The lands of the

petitioner is not required for any public purpose as alleged by the respondents. Before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to

the petitioner, which is mandatory under Sec. 48-B of the Act.

Mr. Kamadevan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents relied on the files relating to acquisition proceedings and argued

that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the same was filed six months after passing the award and possession was

taken. Under G.O.Ms. No.455 revenue department dated 14-05-1997 the Government approved the Master Plan complex scheme for the

construction of office building in one complex area invoking the urgency clause U/sec. 17(1) of the Act, which was also approved under

G.O.Ms.No.454 Revenue Department Dated 03-06-1998. The notification was published on 04-06-1998 in Government Gazette ,the contents

of the same was also published in Tamil Newspapers namely Theekkadir and Malaimurasu on 12-06-1998 and 13-06-1998 respectively. The

substance of the notification was also published in the locality on 26-06-1998, Sec. 5A enquiry was dispensed with in view of the urgency

provision being invoked, draft declaration U/sec. 6 of the Act was approved in G.O.Ms. 592 Revenue Department dated 13-07-1998 and

published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on the same day. The declaration was published in Tamil Newspapers namely Dhinathanthi and

Malaimurasu on 10-09-1998, the substance of the same was also published in the locality on 11-09-1998. The award enquiry was posted on 07-

04-1999 at Government IIT Campus, Vengikkal Village, notice under Sec. 9(1) and 10 of the Act were published in Government Offices and

other relevant places on 04-03-1999. The notices under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Act were served on the land owners on 01-03-1999 requesting

them to appear for the award enquiry scheduled on 07-04-1999. Out of an extent of 6.74.5 hectares of land notified for land acquisition

withdrawal proposals for the extent of 4.62.5 hectares of land have been submitted to the Government on the direction given by the District

Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 02-07-1999, on the notes of inspection of Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue

Administration, Chennai. The land in Survey No. 99, 98 in this block and Survey No. 103 in Block No.5 were found to be cultivated with paddy

and sugarcane as they are garden lands with irrigation wells and electric connection those lands were deleted. The award has been passed on 24-

03-2000 in respect of the remaining portions of the land. The Government has considered the representation of the petitioner under Sec. 48 (B)

and rejected the same. The present writ petition has been filed after lapse of six months from the date of award enquiry namely 24-03-2000. The

petitioner''s husband namely Pattabi is a Government Servant is getting a monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. The averments that the petitioner''s signature

was obtained with anti date is denied. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that after receipt of the notice under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the

Act on 01-03-1999 the petitioner appeared for the award enquiry on 07-04-1999 and claimed higher compensation amount and employment to

her sons namely Yuvaraj and Balamurugan, which would disprove that the allegation that her signature was obtained forcefully with anti date. Part

of the lands acquired are already utilised for construction of Government offices. The remaining portions will be utilised for the Government office

buildings, official quarters, hospitals, post office, telephone exchange, community hall, banks etc., and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

The respondents have duly complied with all the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and Rules. The lands

including the petitioner''s land is being utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. The respondents after due consideration has passed the

impugned order and it is not open to the petitioner to compel the respondents to re-convey the land to the petitioner since there is no such

provision enumerated in the Act or Rules. Once the Respondent/Government has come to the conclusion that re-conveyance of lands cannot be

made, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and pass orders. In this case, the petitioner herself has appeared before the Tahsildar for

award enquiry and demanded higher compensation amount as well as employment for her sons. Further, the reasons assigned by the respondents

to exclude the adjacent lands is convincing and valid. In and by the impugned order, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner

has not submitted any petition dated 23-07-1999 as alleged by her in the earlier writ petition. Further, the petition dated 20-06-1999 was

submitted to the Chief Minister which was taken into consideration and found that the land of the petitioner cannot be re-conveyed since the same

are located abutting the Vellore-Tiruvannamalai Road. Moreover, the lands of the petitioner are very much required for the purpose of constructing

quarters to the District Collectors and District Revenue Officials. The said reason assigned by the respondents is cogent, convincing and valid.

In view of the above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also

closed.