Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. There was a long standing demand for providing a pathway to the burial ground from the harijan colony in Ottai village since they had to carry the dead bodies to the burial ground only through the patta lands belonging to members of various communities and at times, they had to face stiff resistance from the land owners. Accepting such a demand, the District Collector of Villupuram, authorised the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 4(2) of the said Act. Accordingly, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, identified the lands to be acquired, issued notice to the interested persons and submitted a report along with the objections to the District Collector, Villupuram, recommending for the acquisition of the portion of the lands comprised in S.Nos. 67, 70, 71, 72, 76 and 77, measuring a total extent of 0.27.0 hectares. The proposed land acquired was separately shown in Sub-divisions in S.Nos. 67/1A, 70/1A, 71/1B, 71/2B, 72/1A, 76/1A, 76/2A, 76/3A and 77/2A. Among the respective owners of the lands comprised in the above said survey numbers, except the petitioner, others did not raise any objection for the proposed acquisition. The petitioner who was the owner of S.No. 71/1 alone raised an objection contending that it was not necessary to acquire the said lands for the provision of pathway leading to the burial ground in S.No. 77/1 since the use of the said poramboke land comprised in S.No. 77/1 in Ottai village had been discontinued and they have got another poramboke land which could be used as burial ground. The report of the Authorised Officer, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, along with the written objections submitted by the petitioner was considered by the District Collector, Villupuram and upon such consideration, the District Collector, Villupuram was satisfied with the necessity to acquire the above said lands including 0.07.0 hectares of the land comprised in S.No. 71/1 belonging to the petitioner. Consequently, the District Collector issued notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act 31/1978 on 30.12.1999. The same was published in the Official Gazette of the Villupuram District on 10.01.2000.

3. As per the scheme of the Act, on the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), the land vested with the Government absolutely free from encumbrances. Thereafter, the prescribed authority, namely, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, conducted the award enquiry for fixing the compensation and passed an award in Award No. 17/1999-2000, dated 28.03.2000. For the above said land of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,501/- was awarded as compensation. Since the petitioner was not prepared to receive the compensation, the compensation amount relating to the land of the petitioner which was acquired for the above said purpose was deposited in the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. A reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was taken on file by the Court as L.A.O.P.No. 78 of 2000 and a notice was served on the petitioner regarding the deposit of the compensation amount into Court. Thereafter, the petitioner, instead of receiving the said amount without prejudice to his right to challenge the quantum of compensation, simply chose to file a claim petition contending that the acquisition itself was not in accordance with law and hence, the reference itself should be rejected. It seems the Court also, without considering the scope of the reference and the claim statement made by the petitioner, kept the matter pending for about six years thinking that it was a reference for apportionment of the compensation awarded for the land acquired. However, when the same was taken up for trial, the learned Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Tindivanam, found that the petitioner had attempted to convert the said L.A.O.P. proceedings into a proceedings for challenging the notice under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 and also the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act and came to the conclusion that such a contention could not be raised in the L.A.O.P., registered based on a reference and deposit of the award amount under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Accordingly, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge ordered that the compensation amount of Rs.3,501/- deposited into Court by the Authorised Officer in connection with the award in Award No. 17/1999-2000, dated 28.03.2003 be paid to the petitioner along with interest, if any. After the said order came to be passed, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court with the present Writ Petition, not challenging the award, but challenging the 4(1) notification itself.

5. Based on the above said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued vehemently that the colourable exercise of the power of eminent domain should properly dealt with by the Court by setting aside the 4(1) notification, by which, the lands sought to be acquired would stand vested with the Government.

6. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents that the Authorised Officer who submitted the report under Section 4(2) to the Collector, has not been made a party in the Writ Petition, whereas the Village Administrative Officer who has nothing to do with the acquisition proceeding has been unnecessarily made a party to the Writ Petition. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that though conducting enquiry with the interested persons was assigned to the Authorised Officer, namely, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, the report of the Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, was personally considered by the District Collector and the District Collector, on being satisfied with the necessity to go ahead with the proposed acquisition, chose to issue 4(1) notification.

11. There was no objection from the owners of the other lands except S.No. 71/1B regarding which the petitioner was the owner. When all the other persons give their lands and expressed their no objection for providing a pathway leading to the burial ground from the harijan colony, the petitioner alone wanted to be a stumbling block for the welfare measure sought to be taken by the Government. Initially, he raised an objection before the Authroised Officer, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam. He considered the same and submitted a report stating that the objection could not be sustained. The said objection was also considered by the District Collector and the District Collector also, on application of mind, chose to reject the objection and proceed with the acquisition proceedings. After 4(1) notification was issued, which had the effect of vesting the property with the Government free from encumbrances, the petitioner did nothing and kept quite. Subsequently, the award enquiry was conducted by the prescribed authority, viz., the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, which resulted in the passing of the award in Award No. 17/1999-2000, dated 28.03.2000. The 4(1) notification was published in the Villupuram District Gazette, on 10.01.2000. Till the award was passed on 28.03.2003, the petitioner did nothing. He did not chose to challenge the 4(1) notification immediately after its publication. Even after the passing of the award which resulted in the submission of the reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and deposit of the compensation amount in the Court since the petitioner did not come forward to receive the amount, the petitioner simply kept quite till he received a notice in L.A.O.P. No. 78 / 2000 registered based on the reference made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. By the clever method to purchase the time, the petitioner chose to file a claim petition before the Additional Sub Court in the L.A.O.P., praying for dismissal of the reference stating that the acquisition was not a bona fide one for public purpose. When the matter was heard by learned Additional Sub Judge, Tindivanam, the Learned Judge found that the matter was unnecessarily prolonged at the instance of the petitioner. The learned Additional Sub Judge, rightly rejected his claim and directed payment of the compensation amount deposited into Court to the petitioner. Only thereafter the petitioner has chosen to come forward with the present Writ Petition.