V. Veeraraghavan (a) Venkatesh vs The Collector and The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare)

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the

proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for the construction of house sites to Irulars by notice dated 19.5.1995 issued u/s 4(2) of the

Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 with reference to S.Nos.83/4 and 84/5 consisting of 0.46.0 Hectare situated at Sogandy village, Sriperumbudur

Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

Considering the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, though several points have been raised in the context of the validity of the notification,

in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to succeed I am not referring to all the points raised by the petitioner.

In paragraph No.2 of the affidavit, the petitioner has positively stated that a few years ago the very same beneficiaries were given assignment of

house site lands near the village but later on they sold the same for higher price and now they seek for house sites. Some of the Irulars of the village

were allotted with house sites near the village and there is still large extent of land is available. At present seven persons require house sites and

they can be provided with house in the place where the earlier allotments were made. It is further stated that that there are alternative high level

lands and Government poramboke lands.

Even though the writ petition was taken up for hearing after eight years, no counter has been filed and on 28.1.2004 hearing was specifically

adjourned only for the purpose of filing counter dealing with the said issue. When the writ petition is taken up today for enquiry, today also no

counter is filed. Government Advocate has filed only parawar remarks in the said context.

I have perused the parawar remarks and with reference to the aforesaid allegations in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit, there is absolutely no

reference to the specific allegation raised by the petitioner. With reference to paragraph No.2 of the affidavit, the following are the only remarks

furnished by the respondent:-

The Form I notice under rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act 31/1978 dt.19.9.98. The same was served on one Tmt. Krishnaveni

Ammal W/o. Kuppusamy who is blood related to the petitioner. The reasons made by the petitioner in the affidavit is only to avoid the land

acquisition of the petitioner''s land. The lands were absolutely required for the purpose of providing house site to 30 Irulars in Sogandi Village.

Only on due verification of the applicants from Irular''s and Socio economic development were considered and the acquisition of land vital one and

after adopting all the formalities laid down in the Act and the lands are adjoining to the existing residential areas of the Irular''s families. The prayer

made by the petitioner deserves no consideration.

From the above extract, it is seen that the specific allegations of the petitioner that the very same beneficiaries were allotted with house sites on

earlier occasion and that later they have sold the same for high prices and now they seek house sites, etc., have not at all been denied by the

respondents.

Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the impugned proceedings are not bona fide and the impugned proceedings are quashed. The writ petition

is allowed. No costs.