Madras High Court
V.Ravikumar vs The District Collector on 3 September, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.09.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.A.Nos. 381 and 455 of 2012 1. V.Ravikumar ... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A.381/2012 2. V.S.Kannaiah Naidu ... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A.455/2012 -vs- 1. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. 2. The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Walajapet, Vellore District. ... Respondents/Respondents in both W.As. Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the common order dated 22.07.2008 made in W.P.Nos.17133 and 17134 of 2008. For Appellants : Ms.Srilekha For Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondentes : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Spl. Govt. Pleader ***** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.Dhanapalan,J.,) Heard Ms.Srilekha, learned counsel with Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners and Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondenets.
2. These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 22.07.2008 made in W.P.Nos.17133 and 17134 of 2008, wherein the relief sought for was to quash the records of the 1st respondent in respect of land acquisition proceedings published in Vellore District Gazette dated 09.10.2000 in K 11/61 595/2000 in respect of S.No.147/8B, 147/10B and 147/2, 147/5A to an extent of 0.12.0, 0.29.0 and 0.17.0, 0.08.0 hectres respectively at Koothampakkam Village in Arakonam Taluk and the learned Single Judge had dismissed both the writ petitions both on merits and also on the ground of delay and laches.
3. The appellants / petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) (in short Act), in and by which, it has been mentioned that the land specified in the Schedule are needed for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Schemes to wit for the provision of house sites to the Adidravidars and therefore, notice was issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Consequent thereto, the District Collector also passed the order and published notification in the District Gazette on 09.10.2000. It is the submission of the claimants / petitioners that they were not aware of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents and were kept dark about the same without issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act and straightaway proceeded to notify in the District Gazette. The appellants / petitioners came to know about such acquisition during the 1st week of July, 2008 and challenged the same stating that as per Section 5(1) of the Act, publication of notice under Form-III is compulsory and non compliance of the same by the respondents is in violation of the provisions of Act.
4. However, learned Single Judge, after going through the affidavit therein, dismissed those two writ petitions, on the ground, that there is no explanation forthcoming as to the delay of 8 years in approaching this Court to challenge the said notification. The Writ Court, in support of its findings, also relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in R.Pari vs. Special Tahsildar, Adi Ddravidar Welfare, reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706, wherein it has been held that mere communication of the order in a cyclostyle format cannot be considered to be vitiating the proceedings and in the event of proving the application of mind by the Collector, the communication in a cyclostyle format will not at all vitiate the proceedings.
5. With regard to the issue raised by the petitioners / appellants before the Writ Court, that there were other poramboke lands available in and around the area, learned Single Judge had held that such a contention cannot be raised in a matter of land acquisition proceedings involving Act 31 of 1978 and it is for the authorities to decide the nature of land, extent of land and its location.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners has mainly contended that the notification was issued in the name of a dead person and therefore, the appellants had no knowledge in respect of acquisition proceedings that caused much delay in preferring the writ petitions. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, does not have legs to stand. Further, learned Single Judge has not looked into the issuance of notice as required under Rule 5(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which requires the authority concerned to serve notice in Form-III to the owner and all persons interested.
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
8. A perusal of the entire scenario would reveal that lands specified in the Schedule, which include the land of appellants / petitioners and others, were proposed to be acquired for construction of house sites under Harijan Welfare Schemes exclusively to the Adidravidars. Therefore, the District Collector, by invoking his power provided under Section 4 (1) of the Act, had published the lands with survey numbers in the District Gazette so as to serve notice on the land owners, against which, the appellants had knocked at the door of this Court after a lapse of 8 years by way of filing writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeals.
9. On verification of the records produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is noticed that Form-I notice was issued on 11.09.1999 in compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules and subsequently, the same was published in the Gazette notification on 09.10.2000 in Form-II and as per Rule 5(i) of the Rules, immediately after the publication of the notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act in the District Gazette by the District Collector, notice was served in Form-III to the respective owners and all persons interested for enquiry.
10. Once a scheme is implemented exclusively for the welfare of the downtrodden people and award passed, interference to such benevolent act should be minimal and cannot be curtailed at any cost. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.Jayanandan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ramanathapuram and others (W.A.No.77 of 2006) decided on 07.02.2008 has categorically held as under:
9. It is an admitted case that the third respondent, the Special Tahsildar issued a notice to the appellant under section 4(2) of the Act calling upon him to file his objections, if any, for the proposal to acquire his land in an extent of 0.22 hectare out of the total extent of 0.97 hectare. The appellant appeared and submitted his objections on 28.11.1985 on which date the enquiry was fixed. The objections so raised by the appellant have been considered and over-ruled and the proposal has been submitted to the Collector. Pursuant to the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act has been published on 17.07.1996. So, the first contention that the notice under section 4(2) of the Act has not been served on the appellant is not correct which was also not the contention raised before the learned single Judge. It is an admitted fact that all further proceedings such as award was passed on 16.09.1997, the land has been taken possession on 17.09.1997 and thereupon pattas had been granted to 14 beneficiaries on 07.12.1997. After the public purpose for which the land has been acquired has been duly served, the appellant filed the present writ petition on 31.01.1998 by contending that no notice whatsoever has been served on the appellant, which is factually incorrect.
10. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai, 2006(4) CTC 609 to contend that the appellant should be given second opportunity to put forth his objections to the correctness of over ruling his objections by the Land Acquisition Officer, before the District Collector. Though such a ground has not been taken by the appellant before the learned single Judge, we heard him on the issue.
11. From the details stated supra, it is clear that the writ petition has become infructuous even when the writ petition was filed. A mandamus in futility cannot be issued. When the respondents are conferred with the power to acquire lands in accordance with the statutory provisions and such exercise has been carried out by the respondents, the relief of mandamus against the respondents not to perform the statutory function cannot be granted. Further, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, the writ petition filed by the appellant cannot be maintained as the same has been filed after the entire process for which the land has been acquired was accomplished.
12. A Division bench of this Court in the case of Ramalingam v. State of T.N. 2005 (3) CTC 1, has held as follows :
"It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others 2003 (4) SCC 485; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671, Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh v. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9) SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan and others 1996 (1) SCC 250. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself."
In the case of S.Harshavardhan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (3) CTC 691, a Division bench of this Court has held as follows :
"It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others 2003 (4) SCC 485 that writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings should not be entertained after the award has been passed. In that case, the award was passed on 15.03.1994 whereas the writ petition was filed on 12.04.1994, i.e., after the award was given. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed as belated. Similarly in Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671, the Supreme Court observed vide paragraph 17 :
"In any event, after the award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder."
The Supreme Court also observed in that decision that this has been the consistent view of the Court, e.g., C.Padma and others v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1997 (2) SCC 627; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 482, etc. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of laches."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394. In paragraphs 17 to 19, has held as follows:-
"17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.
12. After careful scrutiny of the original records, we have no hesitation to hold that there is neither procedural irregularities committed nor any violation of legal provisions, by the respondents in acquiring the lands of appellants / petitioners. In short, it is difficult for us to observe that merely because the order under section 4 (3) (a)was not communicated to the person interested, the entire acquisition proceedings have been rendered invalid.
13. As to the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were aware of acquisition proceedings only in the year 2008, as the notice was served in the name of the dead person, we feel that there is no substance in the contention. It is also to be noted that the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act has to serve notice to such persons, whose names are entered into records of rights and not to those, whose names do not figure out in a record of rights, but who holds some interest in lands. Moreover, in this case, it is no doubt true that an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector and thereafter that the Collector proceeded to take steps under Section 4 (3) of the Act, signifying the necessity to acquire the land. The language as stipulated in the Act is clear and, beyond, making it implicit that the District Collector has to take into consideration the objections raised while passing the order, it does not spell out any further obligation on the part of the Collector to serve the copy of his order on the landlord or the person interested. Therefore, it is for the appellants / petitioners to be vigilant to have participated in the enquiry so as to raise their objections and quick enough to approach the Court without any delay. Apart from this, the appellant / petitioners, either in the affidavit or in the submissions made before the Writ Court, had not raised the plea of serving notice to the dead person and therefore, in absence of the same, this Court cannot be expected to come as rescue to the claim made by them. Once the entire provisions and the Rules made thereunder have been strictly followed and adhered to by the respondents before acquisition of lands, no necessity arose for us to interfere with such proceedings as well as with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
14. Accordingly, finding no merits in these appeals, they are dismissed as devoid of merits. The order of the learned Single Judge is upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[V.D.P.J.] [G.C,J.,] 03.09.2014 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar
1. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.
2. The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Walajapet, Vellore District.
V.Dhanapalan,J.
and G.Chockalingam,J.
ar W.A.Nos. 381 and 455 of 2012 03.09.2014