Madras High Court
Ramathal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2011
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.24093 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 Ramathal ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Coimbatore. 3.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA), Housing Scheme, Unit - I, Coimbatore. 4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tatabad, Coimbatore -12. 5.The Special Officer (Boodan Board) Tamil Nadu Boodan Board, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai -5. ...Respondents Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned 4(1) notification dt 13.9.1995 and 6 declaration published in Tamilnadu Government Gazette Part II-Section 2 dt 27.9.1996 on the file of the 1st respondent and Award passed in Award No.4/98 in L.A. No. 681/87 dt 28.9.1998 in Survey No.12/1 and 13/1 of Vellakinar village, Coimbatore taluk on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Krishnakumar For Respondents : Mr.RM.Muthukumar,GA for R1 to R3 Mr.A.Vijayakumar for R4 O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward to challenge a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13.09.1995 as well as the Declaration made under Section 6 and published in the Government Gazette on 27.09.1996 and the Award passed in Award No.4/98 dated 28.09.1998 relating in Survey No.12/1 and 13/1 of Vellakinar village, Coimbatore Taluk on the file of the 3rd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer, Coimbatore.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.11.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of dispossession if the petitioner had not already been dispossessed.
3. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 01.10.2010 together with supporting documents. The 4th respondent namely, Executive Engineer, TNHB has also filed a counter affidavit dated 29.01.2010.
4. In normal circumstances, the petitioner's attempt to challenge a land acquisition notification of the year 1995 as well as the Award of the year 1998 will never be allowed to be challenged after a period of one decade. But however, the petitioner contended that the lands in question were covered by Tamil Nadu State Boodan Board.
5. The petitioner claimed that the lands in S.Nos.12/1 and 13/1 to the extent of 4.87 acres in Vellakinar Village, Coimbatore Taluk was assigned in her favour under the Vinoba Boomi Dhana Scheme in the year 1964. She had been in possession of the land and cultivating crops ever since the date of assignment. She was also granted Patta Pass Book in the year 1994. She has no other property other than this agricultural land. She has been paying kist and receipts were also issued in favour of the petitioner. The ownership certificate was also given in respect of the said land. When the 4th respondent attempted to interfere in the aforesaid property during July 2009, she made representations. On receipt of the representation, the District Backward and Minority Welfare Officer, Coimbatore forwarded a communication dated 21.08.2009 to the 4th respondent Housing Board to take action on the representation. It is only thereafter, the petitioner came to know that land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the said land by G.O.Ms.No.670 dated 31.07.1995 and subsequently, Declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.06.1996 and an Award was passed on 28.09.1998. The notification issued by the respondents stands in the name of Tamil Nadu Boodan Board.
6. It was contended by the petitioner that since no notice was served under Section 4(1) and Section 6 Declaration of the Act, any proceedings initiated will be invalid. No opportunity was also given to raise objections during under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act. No prior approval from the Government as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act was also obtained.
7. The third respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of building houses for Low and Middle Income Group people under Vellakinar Neighbourhood Scheme on behalf of the Tamilnadu Housing Board and the land comes within the larger extent of 761.41 acres. The lands in S.Nos.12/1, 12/2 and 13/1, an extent of 4.87 acres were covered by Section 4(1) notification and the same was also published in the Government Gazette and widely published in "Makkal Kural" dated 15.09.1995 and in "Pirpagal" dated 16.09.1995. The substance of the notification was also published on 06.10.1995 in the locality. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar on 28.11.1995. Intimation notices was served on the land owners and interested persons as found in the Revenue Records. Chitta notices were also published in the Village and Taluk Offices as prescribed under the Rules. This particular land was registered in the name of Boodhan Board, Chennai as per revenue records and no objection was received from any person. But pursuant to the enquiry notice under Section 5(A), the Secretary, Boodhan Board submitted a letter dated 12.09.1995 and gave his consent to acquire the land and also requested to send the compensation amount in the name of Boodhan Board. The letter sent by the Special Officer and Director of Rural Development, Tamil Nadu Boodhan Board was also enclosed along with the typed set, wherein, survey numbers referred to by the petitioner finds a place. The statement recorded from the Village Administrative Officer, Vellakinar was also enclosed. In that statement, he had stated that the survey numbers belong to the Boodhan Board. It was thereafter, an Award No.4/98 was passed and compensation was declared in favour of the President, Boodhan Board, Chennai.
8. In the Award, in respect of the survey numbers for which the petitioner claims ownership, the same was dealt with in the Award in paragraph 22, which is as follows:-
22(1) Apportionment to President, Boodhan Board, Chennai Land S.F.No. Extent (In Hecatares) 12/1 1.48.0 12/2 0.08.5 13/1 0.40.5 16 1.64.5 17/2B 0.04.0
------
Total 3.65.5
------
The Director of Rural Development and Special Officer Tamil Nadu Boodhan Board Secretary, Chennai in his letter No.2740/93 B.B.1 dated 25.06.1998 has stated that the Board in its letter even no.dated 12.09.95 has already given its consent for the acquisition and also requested to pay the amount of compensation in favour of the President, Tamil Nadu Boodhan Board, Chennai."
9. It was further claimed by the third respondent that after duly following the procedure under the Central Act, the lands were acquired and the petitioner cannot deny her knowledge about these proceedings. If she had been a resident of the said village, she would have come to know about these proceedings. The Patta Pass book claimed by her and the Land Patta Certificate issued shall be appropriately explained by the District Collector, Coimabtore. It was stated that the third respondent had taken over the land on 30.10.1998 after being handed over by the acquiring authority. The revenue authority also had carried out the necessary changes in the village accounts on 24.11.1999 in the name of the Tamilnadu Housing Board. It was also claimed that the issuance of Patta Pass Book had commenced in the year 1995. The Kist receipt do not reflect the Patta Nos.240 and 242. The petitioner did not produce any kist receipt after the Fasli 1411 (2001). The compensation amount of Rs.3,74,136/- was also sent to President, Boodhan Board, Chennai.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, Housing Board, apart from repeating the stand taken by the third respondent, it was stated that an extent of 1.48.0 Hectares in S.F.No.12/1, and an extent of 0.40.5 in S.F.No.13/1 Hectares is vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and necessary approval was also obtained from the State Government as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. The lands were required for a comprehensive Vellakinar Neighbourhood Housing Scheme.
9. The Tahsildar, Kovai North in his letter dated 01.10.2010 addressed to the second respondent District Collector had stated that on perusing the Patta Pass book and the Land Ownership Certificate, it was found that the said certificates were not genuine. There was no 'A' Seal in the Kovai North Tahsildar Office during the year 1994 and 2002. The Certificate was not given in a proper manner. The signature which stands in the name of one P.Saminathan, who was the then Tahsildar of Kovai North Taluk does not tally with the signature found in the Certificate produced by the petitioner. In respect of Patta Nos.240 and 242, village records were produced. Patta No.240 stands in the name of Tmt.Marudhathal W/o. Nagamuthu Gounder, V.S.Kuzhandhaivelu S/o.Subbiah Gounder, Gardiner Export Private Limited, Chalukya Investment Private Limited. Patta No.242 stands in the name of Vellingiri S/o Nanjukutty Gounder. It was stated that Survey Nos.12/1, 12/2, and 13/1 from the beginning stood in the name of the President, Boodhan Board. These lands were given only for maintenance by the petitioner. There was no document available for change of patta in her name. After the UDR scheme was completed on 20.07.1987, Patta Nos.240 and 242 were converted as Patta No.159 and continued in the name of Boodhan Board. The document alleged to have been obtained on 15.06.2002 was forged documents and there was no scope for the Tahsildar office to grant patta since already S.No.159 has come into force after UDR scheme. Further, Patta Bass Book was given from the year 1995-1996. There was no representation from the petitioner for issuance of any Patta pass book. Since the land tax receipts produced showed that the Patta No.159, therefore, there was no scope after 1996 to have old Patta Nos.240 and 242. Hence, the document was not a genuine document.
10. The District Collector, Coimbatore in his written communication to the Additional Government Pleader dated 06.12.2010 after referring to the letter of the Tahsildar letter stated that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine.
11. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following judgments of this Court in support of his contentions.
a) Mrs.Goundathal and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary (W.P.No.18195 of 1998 dated 24.11.2006) to contend that impugned notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 Declaration was set aside by this Court as no proper publication was made by the respondents and no opportunity was given under Section 5A.
b) Mrs.Goundathal and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary (W.P.No.18272 of 1998 dated 17.03.2008), wherein this Court set aside the notification issued under Section 4(1) as well as the consequential Section 6 declaration since it was issued in the name of a dead person even after having the knowledge about the death of the owner of the lands.
c) A.Unnikrishnan v. State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary (W.P.No.9241 of 1998 dated 03.06.2008), wherein this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of acquisition on the ground that prior approval from the Government before initiating acquisition was not obtained. Hence, notification under Section 4(1) and 6 were set aside.
d) Kuppusamy v. The State of Tamil nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government (W.P.No.18322 of 2008 dated 13.04.2009, wherein this Court allowed the writ petition on the ground of non-obtaining prior approval from the Government.
12. It is not clear as to how these judgments will have any relevance to the case on hand. In the counter affidavit, it was clearly stated that entire procedure has been followed as per law and the petitioner is not one such person whose name is found in the revenue records. Prior approval of the Government has also been obtained as set out in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent dated 29.01.2010.
13. Per contra, Mr.Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Supreme Court in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698 for contending that the subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings and a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings long after passing of the Award and vesting on the state was not maintainable.
14. He also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation Limited and another v. Jain School Society reported in (2004) MLJ 66 (S.C) to contend that a writ petition to quash the notification under Section 4 filed after 20 years after the notification was not valid on the ground that the lands were not put to use for the purpose for which the acquisition has been made.
15. He also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Palani Velayutham and others v. District Collector, Tirunelveli and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 664 and to contend that the Collector is not expected to conduct a roaming enquiry and it is suffice if he goes by the revenue records. He relied upon the following passages found in paragraphs 8 and 12:
"8. There is no obligation on the part of the Collector to hold an enquiry to find out whether there are any other persons interested in the land or whether there are any vested remaindermen, in addition to those whose names are entered as the owners/holders/occupiers of the acquired land. Nor does the Collector have any obligation to issue notices to persons whose names are not entered in the revenue records. This does not mean that the persons whose names are not entered in the revenue records do not have any right in the acquired land or that they lose their claim to compensation. Their interests and rights in regard to compensation are protected by the provision relating to apportionment of compensation and provision for referring the disputes to a civil court for apportionment of compensation.
12. Therefore we agree with the Division Bench that notice of acquisition has to be issued only to those whose names are entered or recorded as owners/ holders/ occupiers in the revenue records and not to others."
16. The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. P.Karuppa Konar and others reported in 2007 (5) CTC 355 for contending that a writ petition filed after the possession handed over to the requisitioning body, the right, title and interest of the erstwhile owners will get extinguished and the Government becomes absolute owner of the property. The delay in preferring a writ petition can be a ground to disqualify if the petitioner urges any other grounds.
17. In view of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents set out above, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2011 Index : Yes Internet : Yes svki To
1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Coimbatore.
3.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA), Housing Scheme, Unit - I, Coimbatore.
4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tatabad, Coimbatore -12.
5.The Special Officer (Boodan Board) Tamil Nadu Boodan Board, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai -5.
K.CHANDRU,J.
svki ORDER IN W.P.No.24093 of 2009 18.08.2011