S. Mohammed Ibrahim vs Annavasal Panchayat Union and Others

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with the

possession of the petitioner in respect of land in S.No. 62/2 measuring an extent of 0.07.0 Hectares in Narthamalai Village, Kulathur Taluk.

The following facts are sufficient for disposal of the Writ Petition:

A total extent of 0.03.0 Hectares of land in Survey No. 62/4 was owned by the petitioner and 0.07.0 Hectares of land in Survey No. 62/2 was

owned by the deceased father of the petitioner. The site is stated to be acquired for construction of Kalyana Mandapam for Arulmighu

Muthumariamman Temple in the said village. According to the petitioner, the said land has not been utilized by the respondents and hence, he has

prayed for the above relief.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was not being utilized for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired.

Therefore, by Order dated 28.1.2004, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to find out as to whether the land belonging

to the petitioner was still required for the purpose of construction of Kalyana Mandapam. On instructions, the learned Additional Government

Pleader states that the land is required and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that he has withdrawn his objections in the 5-A enquiry proceedings only on the

promise made by the Executive Officer that an alternative site will be allotted to him. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

finds acceptance in the 5-A enquiry proceedings. It is specifically recorded that the Executive Officer appeared in person on 24.11.1986 and had

given a statement agreeing to allot an alternative site to the petitioner in lieu of the site given to the Temple and on the said assurance given by the

Executive Officer, the petitioner has withdrawn his objections and gave his consent for the acquisition of both the pieces of land in Survey No.

62/4 and 62/2. Therefore, in the above back ground, the respondents should either return the land or should allot an alternative site of equal extent

as demanded by the petitioner.

Though the stand as taken by the respondents that the Executive Officer was not competent to make any such concession, on a perusal of the

file, it is seen that the Tahsildar has recorded the specific statement by the Executive Officer to the said effect. It has to be appreciated that the

petitioner gave up his objections only on the promise made by the Executive Officer and therefore, it is not open to the respondents now to state

that the Executive Officer had no power to do so. The acquiring authority was fully made aware of the position and it is not proper for the

respondents to state that the Executive Officer has no authority to make such a promise.

With the result, the respondents should either restore the land or should provide an alternative site to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The

petitioner is permitted to file an application for withdrawal of the proceedings u/s 48-B of the Act. On receipt of the said application, the

respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and in the event of the respondents not being agreeable

for withdrawal of the proceedings shall allot an alternative site in the village. The said order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of the representation by the petitioner u/s 48-B of the Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.