Madras High Court
M.Ramachandra Naidu vs The Union Of India on 2 March, 2023
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
W.P.No.9510 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 03.03.2021
Pronounced on : 02.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.No.9510 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.11404, 11405 & 11406 of 2018
1.M.Ramachandra Naidu
2.Varalakshmi @ Jayanthi
3.Jayagopu
4.Rajavathanam
5.Sheela Devi
Represented by their Power Agent
M.Iyeappan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Land Reforms,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
2.The Authorized Officer,
(Land Reforms), Karaikkal.
3.Devakantam
4.Vassoumady
5.Jayachandran
6.Jayabalane
7.Inbanadane ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 29
W.P.No.9510 of 2018
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Final Draft Statement under
Section 9(6)(b) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1973, passed by the 2nd respondent in M.R.1/49 on 07.12.1976 as
illegal, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Vijayan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
For R1 and R2 : Mrs.N.Mala
Additional Government Pleader
(Pondicherry)
ORDER
The petition in W.M.P.No.11404 of 2018 filed under Section 2-B Appendix V of AS Rules, is ordered.
2.The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Final Draft Statement under Section 9(6)(b) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), passed by the 2nd respondent, in M.R.1/49 on 07.12.1976, as illegal, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
3.The writ petition is filed by one Ramachandra Naidu and four others, who are represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, namely M.Iyeappan. However, the deponent, who is the Power of Attorney Agent, has described himself as the petitioner and stated that he is the grandson of Ramachandra Naicker, who is the father of respondents 3 to 7.
4.The facts narrated in the affidavit are not cogent and are confusing. The affidavit filed in support of this petition are not to the understanding of anyone and the contentions in the affidavit cannot be reconciled by anyone with normal prudence. The affidavit itself would show the lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Instead of narrating what the petitioners tried to convey, the contents of the affidavit from Para No.2 to 5 are reproduced hereunder, for convenience :
“2.The petitioner is Power of Attorney of petitioner 1 to 5 and none other than grandson of one Ramachandra Naicker, who is the father of Respondents 3 to 7 and the Power of Attorney, is only document of convenience among the family. The said Ramachandra Naicker above suffered an order under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1973 declaring 13.70.31 standard hectares out of 18 standard hectares held by him by Gazette Notification No.200 dated 27.07.1973. The above said Power still in force. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
3.Originally the property belong to one Muthuswamy Naicker who had an total extent of 18 standard hectares, died in the year 1987 leaving behind his wife Rukmani Ammal, Son Ramakrishna Naicker and Daughter Ealwar Poonkhuzhali.
The 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings declaring excess land under Section 4 of the Act treating the entire property as held by Ramakrishna Naicker and his family alone without considering the right and interest of the daughter in the property, which is now claim by her husband were 3rd Respondent and Son and Daughters namely the Respondents 4 to 6.
4.The petitioner states that the entire property was decided as the property of son alone without taking into account of the interest of daughter. The 2nd respondent considered only the male members of the family and allocated portions only in favour the said Ramakrishna Naicker and his family, which is inclusive of his Mother, Wife and 3 Sons.
5.The petitioner states that the daughter's family, namely the petitioners have no knowledge on the official proceedings under the act between the respondents and all the documents were obtained only by right to information and the petitioners are fit to understand the gazette was published in 1975and a final statement under Section 9(6)(b) of the act was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 passed on 07.02.1976 which was published in the gazette of Pondicherry on 13.02.1976. The petitioners are put to understand the said Ramakrishna Naicker also preferred an appeal in LTCMA No.18 of 1977 to the Land Tribunal, Karaikkal, which was also dismissed on 11.08.1977 against which statutory revision for also filed in CRP No.559 of 1979, which was also dismissed on 23.03.1978.”
5.Irrespective of what is stated in the affidavit, this Court tried to understand the whole case of the petitioners by referring to the documents furnished by the petitioners in the Typed Set of Papers. The petitioners have filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 07.12.1976, which is an order under Section 9(6)(b) of the Act. It is seen from the impugned order that proceedings had been initiated under the Act as against Mr.Ramakrishna Naicker, son of Muthusamy Naicker. From the impugned proceedings, dated 07.12.1976, the land owner appears to have filed an objection as against Draft Statement published under Section 9(5) of the Act. The land owner has not given valid objection as regards the Draft Statement, but challenged the Draft Statement only on the ground that the land owner had filed an appeal as against the order passed by the Authorised Officer before the Land Tribunal, Karaikkal. Since the land owner had failed to furnish the particulars of the land to be retained, the surplus land in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Draft Statement was confirmed, except the land in one Survey Field of Elayankudi Village, which was not sub-divided then. Therefore, a direction was issued to prepare Final Statement with the particulars of holding as shown in the Draft Statement. The petitioners have also produced before this Court the order passed by the Land Tribunal, namely, Sub-Court, Pondicherry, dismissing the appeal which was filed as against the order of Authorised Officer, dated 07.12.1976, above referred to.
6.The petitioners have filed a plaint in O.S.No.19 of 2000 before the Additional District Court, Karaikkal. From the plaint, it is seen that the suit was filed in respect of the properties of one Muthusamy Naicker of Elayankudi. The plaintiffs in the suit are the petitioners in the above writ petition. It is stated in the plaint that Muthusamy Naicker passed away in the year 1937, leaving behind his wife Rukmani Ammal, son Ramakrishna Naicker and daughter Ealwarpoonkhuzhali. It is stated that the properties belonged to wife and children of Muthusamy Naicker. Since Rukmani Ammal, wife of Muthusamy Naicker, also died on 09.01.1991, it is contended that the properties are to be divided between the legal heirs of Muthusamy Naicker, viz., Ramakrishna Naicker and Ealwarpoonkhuzhali. The defendants in the suit are respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Respondents 3 to 7 are shown in the plaint as wife and children of Ramakrishna Naicker. The suit was for grant of preliminary decree for partition of ½ share in all the suit properties.
7.The above writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, challenging the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 as against Ramakrishna Naicker, on the short ground that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings initiated by 2nd respondent as against Ramakrishna Naicker and that the proceedings initiated by 2nd respondent are void, as the proceedings are not binding on the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of daughter of Muthusamy Naicker, and that the remedy available to a woman member of the family to claim a share in the family is the common law remedy available to the petitioners. Since the petitioners have also established their right before the Civil Court, it is further contended that the proceedings initiated by 2nd respondent only with the participation of a single male member in the family excluding a female heir, is void and unenforceable. The petitioners further stated that they hold the custody of the properties allotted to them, consequent to the filing of Joint Memo conceding to the 50% shares of petitioners. However, the Joint memo is not produced. The petitioners further stated that they are in physical possession https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 of the properties allotted to them and that the 2nd respondent is now trying to dispossess the petitioners from their holdings, even though the petitioners are utilising the land for cultivation and their income mainly depends on agricultural operations.
8.A counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent and the same was adopted by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent filed an additional counter affidavit in detail with more particulars. From the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is seen that the properties originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naicker and that the lands of Muthusamy Naicker were partitioned after his lifetime between his two sons, namely one Ramakrishna Naicker and Appusamy Naicker, in the year 1961. A French Notaire Partition Deed vide Document No.43, dated 01.06.1961, is produced before this Court to show that the properties of Muthusamy Naicker were partitioned under the said document. It is further stated that, after the Act, proceedings were initiated against both the sons of Muthusamy Naicker. In respect of holdings of Ramakrishna Naicker, land reforms proceedings were initiated under M.R.I./49 and in respect of holdings of Appusamy Naicker, land reforms proceedings were initiated under M.R.I./62. It is further stated that, after the dismissal of the appeal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 filed by Ramakrishna Naicker in L.T.C.M.A.No.2 of 1977, dated 10.01.1977 and dated 11.08.1977, a notification under Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette, dated 18.04.1977. It is further stated that the orders and notifications against Ramakrishna Naicker, at every stage of the proceedings, were widely published in the official Gazette, as well as informed by fixing in conspicuous places and by beating of tom-tom in the Village. It is specifically stated that the surplus lands, as declared, were acquired and possession was taken by the Government on 22.12.1977 by a Panchanama. It is further stated that Ramakrishna Naicker filed a revision in C.R.P.No.559 of 1978 and this Court also upheld the order of Authorised Officer.
9.Since the lands were acquired by initiating proceedings under the Act, it is stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the suit filed in O.S.No.19 of 2000 for partition and any decree granted in favour of the petitioners would not bind respondents 1 and 2, who have taken possession pursuant to the lawful proceedings initiated by them against Ramakrishna Naicker, under the Act. The contention that the petitioners are in joint possession was refuted and it is stated that the petitioners, knowing fully well all the facts, have come with a false case. The suit in O.S.No.19 of 2000 was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 also stated to be a collusive suit and it is further contended that the petitioners have obtained a preliminary decree for partition by playing fraud without impleading the Government, in whose favour the entire land vest pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act. Having regard to the fact that the possession was taken by respondents 1 and 2 on 22.12.1977 and the same was also upheld by this Court in C.R.P.No.559 of 1978, the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the suit is nothing but a collusive one, which is filed with an ill motive suppressing material facts.
10.Learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for respondents 1 and 2, referring to the facts narrated in the counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only for want of merits, but also on the ground of laches. Referring to the fact that the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of judicial process, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that, though the land had already been divided between the two sons of Muthusamy Naicker, namely, Ramakrishna Naicker and Appusamy Naicker, the petitioners have not challenged the allotment in favour of Appusamy Naicker, and therefore, the above writ petition is motivated to defraud the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Government and public by making frivolous claim after nearly five decades.
11.Heard Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.N.Mala, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
12.Before going into the facts, this Court examined the provisions of Act :
➢ Like any other State, the Act was introduced in Pondicherry as an agrarian reform.
➢ Though the Act came into force with effect from 22.09.1974, for the purpose of several provisions of the Act, the “appointed day” was fixed as 24.01.1971 to invalidate every alienation after the appointed day.
➢ The ceiling area for a family or an individual is fixed under Section 4 of the Act. On or from the appointed day, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in the Act, is entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area.
➢ Section 7 of the Act requires furnishing of return by every person holding land in excess of ceiling area.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 ➢ Under Section 8(2) of the Act, if a person holding excess land fails to furnish the return, the Authorised Officer is competent to obtain in such manner as may be prescribed the necessary information either by himself or through such agency as he thinks fit. ➢ In a case where no return is furnished by a person holding surplus land as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, the Authorised Officer, on the basis of information obtained by him, is required to prepare a Draft Statement in respect of all the holdings of such person. ➢ As per Section 9(5) of the Act, the Draft Statement containing all the particulars of the land, as has been collected by the Authorised Officer, shall be published and a copy of such Draft Statement shall also be served on persons concerned together with a notice stating that persons having objections shall send their objections. ➢ Thereafter, an enquiry is contemplated into the objections raised by any individual giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, if any.
➢ The Authorised Officer is also competent to decide the question of title by himself or by referring the question to the Land Tribunal in case a decision involves substantial question of law or of fact. ➢ Any order passed by the Authorised Officer under Sub-Section (1) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Section 10 of the Act cannot be subject to any further appeal. However, anyone aggrieved by the order of Authorised Officer can institute a suit before the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the land or major part of the land is situated, to set aside or modify the order. Subject to the final result of the suit, the order of Authorised Officer shall be final.
➢ After the disposal of the objections preferred under Sub-Section (5) of Section 9 of the Act and after an order passed on the objections, the Authorised Officer may make necessary alterations in the Draft Statement in accordance with the order passed on the objections raised by anyone.
➢ Under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Authorised Officer is required to publish the Final Statement specifying the entire land holding by each person, the land to be retained by him within the ceiling area, and the land declared to be surplus land, along with necessary particulars. Under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Final Statement shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.
➢ Section 13 of the Act only refers to the possible amendment of Final Statement on account of the final disposal of the suit relating to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 question of title of any land excluded under Section 12 of the Act. ➢ Notwithstanding anything contained under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, Section 12(1) mandates exclusion of any land in respect of which any question of title is pending before the competent Court or the Land Tribunal or other authority.
➢ Though the power to rectify any bona fide mistake is contemplated under Section 14 of the Act in regard to any entry in the Final Statement published under Section 11 or Section 13, there is no provision under the Act to challenge the proceedings initiated under the Act by filing a Civil Suit.
➢ After the publication of Final Statement under Section 11 or Section 13, the Government shall publish a notification to the effect that the surplus land is required for a public purpose. ➢ As per Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, on publication of a notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17, the land, subject to the provisions of the Act, be deemed to have been acquired for a public purpose and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such publication, and all right, title and interest of all persons in such land shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have been extinguished. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 ➢ Section 17 can be extracted hereunder for a proper understanding of the scheme of the Act :
“17. (1) After the publication of the final statement under section 11 or section 13, the Government shall, subject to the provisions of sections 15 and 16, publish a notification to the effect that the surplus land is required for a public purpose.
(2) A soon as may be after the publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the authorised officer shall --
(a) cause to be published in every village or town in which any part of the land specified in such notification is situated a proclamation containing the terms of the notification :
(b) cause a copy of the notification to be served on the persons concerned, the creditors, persons whose names appear in the final statement published under section 11 or section 13 and such other persons as may be specified in the rules made under this Act.
(3) on the publication of the notification under sub-
section (1) , the land specified in the notification together with the trees standing on such land and building, machinery, plant ,apparatus, wells, filter points or power lines constructed, erected or fixed on such land and used for agricultural purposes shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been acquired for a public purpose and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such publication and all right, title and interest of all persons in such land shall, with effect from the said date, be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 deemed to have been extinguished:
Provided that where there is any crop standing on such land on the date of such publication, the authorised officer may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, permit the harvest of such crop by the person who had raised such crop.
(4) Subject to the rules made under sub-section (5) , the authorised officer may, at any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), take possession of any land specified in the said notification.
(5) (a) The Government may make rules -
(i) specifying the classes of tenants, who may be allowed to continue in possession of the land :
(ii) permitting any co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Pondicherry Co-Operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act 11 of 1965) or any land mortgage bank to which the Madras Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1934 (Madras Act of 1934) in its application to the Union territory of Pondicherry applies or any agricultural company to continue in possession of the land notwithstanding anything contained in sections 4 and 6, even after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1).
(b) The rules to be made under clause (a) may also provide -
(i) for the conditions subject to which the persons referred to in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause
(ii) of clause (a) may continue in possession of the land;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 16 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
(ii) that the share of a member of the co-
operative society in such land together with his other land, if any, or if he is a member of a family, together with the land owned by the members of his family, if any, does not exceed the ceiling area.” ➢ After the publication of notification, every person, whose right, title or interest in any land is acquired by the Government under Chapter-II, is entitled to compensation according to the rate specified in the Schedule.
➢ Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Authorised Officer may prefer an appeal to the Land Tribunal within the time prescribed. Subject to other remedy available by way of revision before the Land Commissioner and the revision before this Court, the orders of the Authorised Officer is not assailable by referring to any suit or other proceedings without impleading the official respondents after the conclusion of proceedings under the Act.
13.From a reading of the provisions of the Act, the Act has provided a machinery for considering any claim by a third party at every stage. In the present case, the proceedings initiated under the Act as against Ramakrishna Naicker after following all the procedures became final even in the year 1977. Unlike Land Acquisition Act, the property acquired under the present Act, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 17 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 from the date of such publication under Section 17 and all right, title and interest of all persons in such land shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have been extinguished. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are capable of extinguishing the rights of any individual if he does not bother to challenge the publication of Final Statement under Section 11 or Section 13. In the present case, it is stated that the Final Statement was published in Extraordinary Gazette No.528, dated 13.12.1976.
14.Now, let us examine the bona fides of the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioners have filed the suit for partition in the year 2000. From the documents filed before this Court, it is seen that Ramakrishna Naicker is not the only son of Muthusamy Naicker. Muthusamy Naicker died in the year 1937, leaving behind his two sons who succeeded to the property as members of coparcenery. Proceedings were initiated against both the sons of Muthusamy Naicker, viz., Ramakrishna Naicker as well Appusamy Naicker. The partition under the French Notaire Partition Deed vide Document No.43, dated 01.06.1961, would amply show and establish that the properties of Muthusamy Naicker had been divided between the two sons after the lifetime of Muthusamy Naicker, who died in the year 1937. Since the father Muthusamy Naicker died in the year 1937, as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 18 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 admitted by the petitioners in the partition suit, female heir, even if any, is not entitled to any right as the right of Muthusamy Naicker will go to the male members only. Even in the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.19 of 2000 for partition, their claim was not on the basis of any other law, except the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioners' claim in the present writ petition and the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2000 is, therefore, fraudulent.
15.The petitioners have not filed any final decree application claiming any exclusive right with reference to any specific items on the basis of any allotment. The defendants in the suit are the legal heirs of Ramakrishna Naicker, who suffered an order by which the surplus land held by them vested with Government. The fact that Muthusamy Naicker died leaving behind two sons is not even referred to in the partition suit. It is seen that Ramakrishna Naicker participated in the proceedings initiated by 2nd respondent and therefore, it is not known why and how the defendants in the suit conceded to the prayer in the partition suit as he got the properties exclusively to himself under a partition. Without a challenge to the partition in 1961, a collusive suit was filed with a fraudulent intention to defeat the provisions of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 19 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
16.Having regard to the fact that the properties originally belonged to Muthusamy Naicker and it is admitted that he died in the year 1937, this Court finds no legal basis for the claim of petitioners seeking partition without impleading all the legal heirs of Late Muthusamy Naicker. The petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of daughter of Muthusamy Naicker, have filed the suit for partition only against the heirs of Ramakrishna Naicker even though they are supposed to claim same right as against Appusamy Naicker. Therefore, the petitioners' suit for partition against the legal heirs of Ramakrishna Naicker alone, is nothing but a collusive one. It is to be pointed out that the relief against the defendants in the suit for partition is detriment to the defendants' own interest. Since the defendants have submitted to a decree in the suit, that shows collusion. From the description of the suit properties, it is seen that all the properties which were subject matter of partition in 1961 are not included and the legal heirs of Appusamy Naicker are not impleaded. Having regard to the vast extent of land which originally belonged to Late Muthusamy Naicker and the fact that the partition suit is now confined only to a few items, it is clear that the suit is not only collusive but also fraudulent and meant for the purpose of defeating the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the lawful owners of the property by following the procedure in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 20 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 The petitioners cannot plead ignorance of the whole proceedings initiated under the Act resulting in vesting of the surplus land in Government.
17.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that possession is not taken by the respondents pursuant to the Final Statement and that therefore, the petitioners are not aware of the proceedings initiated under the Act. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that physical possession was taken. The taking over of possession has been recorded as per proceedings, dated 22.12.1977, by preparing a Panchanama.
18.The Act does not contemplate any specific procedure for taking possession of the property acquired under the provisions of the Act. It has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that one of the methods of taking possession and handing over to the beneficiary Department is the recording of a Panchanama, which can in itself constitute evidence of the fact that possession had been taken and the land had vested absolutely in the Government. Either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the present Act, there is no specific provision dealing with delivery or giving possession by the owners themselves. Therefore, the accepted form https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 21 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 of possession is by declaration by beating of tom-tom or by handing over a written declaration on the spot that the authority has taken possession, even without the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases relating to Land Acquisition Act.
19.Learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon a few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to substantiate an argument that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal & others [Civil Appeal No.3604 of 2011, dated 26.04.2011], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
“17.In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, this Court has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
20.In the above judgment in Banda Development Authority's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the facts therein, has also observed that, even though objection on the ground of delay and laches is not raised in the affidavit filed on behalf of Government, the High Court is duty bound to take cognizance of the long gap of 9 years between the issue of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the filing of writ petition. The Law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that, writ petitions filed challenging acquisition proceedings with inordinate delay cannot be entertained. Even in cases where impugned order is challenged on the ground that it is void, the unexplained long delay was held to be a valid reason to dismiss the writ petition on the threshold.
21.Having regard to the statutory provisions under the Act, involving publication of Draft Statement and Final Statement after hearing the registered land owners, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners in the present case had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated against Ramakrishna Naicker. Even though no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that writ petitions filed with unreasonable delay of more than the limitation normally available for filing a suit, cannot be entertained. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 23 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Doctrine of Laches has been invoked by Courts in several situations. This Court, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Doctrine of Laches and having found no reasonable cause for the long delay in filing the writ petition even after the suit was filed and decreed even in 2000, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Further, the writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings under Section 9(6)(b) of the Act without challenging the further proceedings culminated in vesting of lands in Government.
22.From a reading of the affidavit, this Court gets an impression that a conscious attempt is made even before this Court to confuse everyone with facts. The petitioners have suppressed the fact that Muthusamy Naicker had two sons and they have divided the properties among themselves under the French Notaire Partition Deed vide Document No.43, dated 01.06.1961. From the documents produced before this Court, it is seen that Final Statement was published as against Ramakrishna Naicker, son of Muthusamy Naicker. A Draft Statement under Section 9(5) of the Act was published on 27.10.1975. After hearing objections, Final Statement is also filed as contemplated under Section 11(2) of the Act. Thereafter, a notification is published under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the Act on 18.04.1977, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 24 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 notifying that the surplus land specified in the Schedule was required for a public purpose. On such publication, the land specified in the notification shall be deemed to have been acquired for a public purpose and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances as contemplated under the Act.
23.The petitioners have filed the above writ petition suppressing the material facts which are supposed to be within the knowledge of the petitioners as members of the family. The deponent, who claims to be the Power of Attorney Agent, admits that he is the grandson of Ramachandra Naicker, who is the father of respondents 3 to 7. From the Genealogy given in the suit for partition in O.S.No.19 of 2000, this Court is unable to correlate the relationship of the Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7, who are said to be the sons of Ramachandra Naicker. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioners have suppressed the facts before this Court cautiously to get some orders by committing perjury. The statements found in the affidavit are drafted in such a fashion with clear intention in mind to mislead everyone. If the petitioners are really the legal heirs of the daughter of Late Muthusamy Naicker, they cannot be heard saying that they are not aware of their paternal uncle by name Appusamy Naicker. Either the petitioners or the Power of Attorney Agent of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 25 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 petitioners has approached this Court not only with an ill motive but also by suppressing material facts to get favourable orders.
24.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi v. Lt. Governor, Government of N.C.T.Delhi & others reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 1578 has held as follows :
“13.We must also observe that the petitioner has been able to frustrate the acquisition and development of the land right from the 1980 onwards by taking recourse to one litigation after the other. The record reveals that all the suits/writ petitions etc. that had been filed had failed. Undoubtedly, every citizen has a right to utilize all legal means which are open to him in a bid to vindicate and protect his rights, but if the court comes to the CA Nos.4849- 4850/2000 conclusion that the pleas raised are frivolous and meant to frustrate and delay an acquisition which is in public interest, deterrent action is called for. This is precisely the situation in the present matter. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with costs which are determined at Rupees two lacs. The respondents, shall, without further loss of time proceed against the appellant.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 26 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018
25.Having regard to the fact that this Court has noticed several infirmities and held that the writ petitioners have filed the above writ petition with mala fide intention, the above writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) payable by the petitioners to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai- 600 104. The cost shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to hold an enquiry as to the identity of the parties who are the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7 before this Court. In case it is revealed that this litigation is at the instance of land grabbers or by persons with criminal background, they may initiate appropriate action against the petitioners or their Power of Attorney Agent before this Court for criminal contempt or for perjury as well for filing false affidavit for the purpose of getting orders from this Court by suppressing material facts which are within their knowledge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 27 of 29 W.P.No.9510 of 2018 Post the matter after six weeks for reporting compliance.
02.03.2023
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
Union of India,
Department of Land Reforms,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
2.The Authorized Officer,
(Land Reforms), Karaikkal.
3.The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority,
Madras High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 28 of 29
W.P.No.9510 of 2018
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
mkn
Order in
W.P.No.9510 of 2018
02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 29 of 29