Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2022
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
W.A.No.666 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.666 of 2019 and CMP.No.5418/2019
R.Angammal (since deceased)
R.Ragothamman (since deceased)
R.Chandran (since deceased)
1.R.Venu
2.R.Gnanavel
3.Vasantha
4.Sundar
5.Suresh
6.Prathap
7.Uma Maheswari
8.Muthukrishnan
9.Meera
10.Kulothungan
11.Sathya Narayanan
12.Gomathi
13.Sulochana
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.666 of 2019
14.Selvaraj
15.Anusuya ... Appellants
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Adi Dravida Welfare,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
3. The District Welfare Officer,
Collector Office, Villupuram.
4. The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 23.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.38311 of 2005 by a learned
Single Judge.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.38311 of 2005 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that the same is devoid of 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 merits.
2. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, assailing the impugned order, heavily contended that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in not appreciating the fact that the Adi-Dravidars are already provided for and they have their colony on the north of the road and also land in a New Colony in Survey Nos.57/2, 3A, 3B and 4. Therefore, the need and necessity to acquire the appellants' lands for the purpose of providing house pattas to the house less people is wholly uncalled for. Moreover, when it was a specific case of the appellants that in Survey No.71/1 having an extent of 2.52.5 hectares and the Natham Survey No.72 having an extent of 0.078 hectares are classified as old colonies and they are lying vacant, they could have been utilized. Moreover, it was also their further case that there are hardly a few Adi-Dravidars who are in need of the house site pattas. This aspect also has not been examined judiciously.
3. Arguing further, learned Counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners contended that when the 2nd respondent issued a notice in Form-I calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the land situated at Survey Nos.57/2 having an extent of 0.64.0 hectares, 57/3A having an extent of 0.29.0 hectares, 57/3B having an extent of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 0.29.5 hectares and 57/4 having an extent of 0.55 hectares respectively should not be acquired for the purpose of housing plots to the Adi Dravidas of Mungilthoraipattu Village, the appellants sent a detailed objection by registered post dated 20.07.2005 and the same was also submitted on 02.08.2005 personally at the time of hearing before the 4th respondent. In the said objection, they have taken a clear and explicit stand that the lands sought to be acquired are the joint properties of one late Ramasamy Reddiar in which the appellants herein are having 1/6th share each and they are all small agriculturists, therefore, being agricultural lands, they should not be acquired for housing purpose. Again, they have also pinpointed clearly that Survey No.71/1, having an extent of 2.52.5 hectares and Natham Survey No.72, having an extent of 0.078 hectares are lying vacant and Adi Dravidars are also residing adjacent to the above said lands. This has not been answered by the Authorized Officer. Moreover the report/recommendation of the Authorized Officer has not been furnished to the appellants herein/writ petitioners.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants also contended that the non-furnishing of a copy of the report /recommendation of the authorized officer has been found to be a vitiating factor by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706. Drawing our notice to paragraphs 42 and 43 of the said decision, learned Counsel for the appellants heavily contended that when the writ petitioners/appellants have taken multiple grounds and justified that their lands should not have been acquired for the reasons mentioned therein, that on receipt of the objection, it is a well-settled legal position as held by this Court in the aforesaid Pari's case that the owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorized officer and the consequence of non-furnishing of the copy of the report/recommendation of the Adi Dravidar Authorized Officer has to be held as a ground vitiating the entire land acquisition proceedings, therefore, in the present case, when it is an admitted case that a copy of the report/recommendation of the Adi Dravida Authorized Officer has not been furnished to the owners, namely, the appellants, the land acquisition proceedings ipso facto are liable to be held as vitiated. This argument has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
5. Concluding his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants also contended that when the respondents are taking serious efforts, equally, they should also take care to protect the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 farmers. In the present case, the lands-in-question being agricultural lands, are also having the advantage of cultivable lands having irrigation facilities. But neither the authorized officer nor the District Collector has applied their mind. Therefore, on this score also, the appeal should be allowed by reversing the order of the learned Single Judge, it is contended.
6. In reply, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placing before us additional documents to disprove the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants will now become landless is unacceptable. The reason being that after acquiring the lands covered in Survey Nos.57/2, 57/3A, 57/3B and 57/4, the appellants are still left with sufficient extent of lands. Secondly, taking again the judgment of the Full Bench reported in R.Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Counsel for the appellants has not correctly appreciated the ratio laid down therein in paragraph 43 of the said decision. The said decision says that the owner should be furnished 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorized officer. It also further says that mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it has been explained properly that the appellants are having sufficient extent of lands, after acquisition of only 1.77.5 ares in Survey Nos.57/2, 57/3A, 57/3B and 57/4 respectively.
7. We are also able to see that the balance extent of lands left out in survey Nos.57/2, 57/3A, 57/3B and 57/4 which are in the possession of the appellants are 3.28.33 ares, therefore, we are unable to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in R.Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706 to hold that the appellants are prejudiced in this case. Secondly, the learned Single Judge also in his order has specifically answered the grievance of the appellants holding that even though the writ petitioners claim that they do not possess any land except the lands which were sought to be acquired, the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District has stated that the appellants own vast extent of lands and also given 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 particulars of the lands possessed by each of the appellants which are reproduced below :
''jw;nghJ nky;KiwaPL bra;Js;s jpU/uhkrhkp bul;oahh; thhpRfSf;F jw;nghija epyf;ifaf epy';fs; nghf kPjk; uhkrhkp bul;oahh; Fkhuuhd jpU/ntQqf;F gl;lh vz;/2544. 992y; 0/91/32 Vh;!^k;. "hdntyk; vd;gtUf;F gl;lh vz;/2545y; 0/81/23 Vh;;!^k;. hkrhkp bul;oahh; nguDk;. unfhj;jkdpd; thhpRfshd Re;jh; (1). Rnuco; (2). gpujhg; (3). ckhknf!;thp (4). KuspfpUco;zd; (5) MfpnahUf;F Tl;lhf gl;lh vz;/2659. 2550y; 0/64/87 Vh;!^k; epyk; Tl;lhft[k;. uhkrhkp nguDk;. re;jpud; thhpRfshd Fnyhj;J';fd; (1). rj;aehuhazdd;(2). MpfnahUf;F gl;lh vz;/2546y; 0.09/78 Vh;!^k;
bry;tuh$; j/bg/bt';fl fpUco;zEf;F gl;lh vz;/2543y; 0/81/13 Vh;!^k; brhe;jkhf cs;ssJ/ thjpfs; nkw;go ,lj;jpy; tptrhak; bra;J tUfpd;wdh;/'' Therefore, in the light of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
8. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(T.R.J.,) (K.B.J.,) 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 08.07.2022 tsi To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Adi Dravida Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Collector Office, Villupuram. 4. The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 T.RAJA,J. AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J. tsi W.A.No.666 of 2019 08.07.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis