Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S.PALANIVELU, J.

This appeal has been directed against the Order passed in Writ petition No.10033 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.09.2001.

2. The material facts shorn off unnecessary details for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in G.O.Ms.No.71, Revenue Department, dated 24.10.1994, which was published in the Gazette of Pondicherry on 08.11.1994. It was declared that the lands belonging to one Nagamuthu Chettiar, son of Murugaiyan comprised in dry Survey Nos.102/1A, 102/2B and 1025A/2, totally sprawling to an extent of 0.76.34 Hectares in Pillaiyarkuppam Village of Pahur Sub Taluk, are acquired for public purpose for the construction of Kirumampakkam Police station and staff quarters at Pillaiyarkuppam Revenue Village. It is also stated therein that in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Central Act, 1/1894) (herein after referred as Act), notice was given to all whomsoever it may concern. In the above said Notification, it is also mentioned that under Section 17(4) of the Act, the Administrator, Pondicherry directs that in view of the urgency of the case the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act shall not apply to this case.

3. The original owner of the said properties had three sons by name Murugaiyan, Ganapathy and Ranganathan, among whom Ganapathy is posing in this writ proceedings as Power of agent to one Varadharajan who is none other than brother's son of Nagamuthu.

4. On 11.01.1995, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.7, Revenue Department of the Government of Pondicherry issued another Notification under Section 6 of the Act, declaring that the possession of the lands may be taken on the expiry of 15 days after the date of publication of notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act. It is also shown that the plan of the land is kept in the Office of the District Collector (Land Acquisition), Pondicherry and it may be inspected at any time during Office hours. It was published in the Gazette of Pondicherry on 24.01.1995.

7. At the out set, the learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently project his plea that, as the owner of the lands the appellant did not receive any notice with reference to the land acquisition at any point of time which will render the proceedings vitiated. In the affidavit, he has affirmed that the properties originally belonged to Nagamuthu and thereafter to himself (Appellant). Nagamuthu had three sons by name Murugaiyan, Ganapathy and Ranganathan. The original owner Murugaiya Chettiar had five sons, Nagamuthu, Nagalingam, Subramanian, Virappsamy and Kilachi. All the said persons passed away. The appellant Varadharajan is son of Kilachi, for and on behalf of whom the said Ganapathy filed the writ petition as his Power Agent. Even though the affidavit accompanied the writ petition is silent about the manner in which Varadharajan became owner of the properties, from the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, it transpires that it is his contention that the property was allotted to the share of Varadharajan on the strength of unregistered deed of partition brought about among the family members. But the alleged unregistered partition deed has not seen the light of the day. Varadharajan has woefully failed to produce the documents to show his ownership in the properties. In the affidavit it is stated that Varadhrajan is in possession of the property, which is supported by the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. The said certificate is available in the file which shows that in Survey No.102, the land to an extent of 47 kuzhis belongs to Varadharajan, who has been cultivating the land and the certificate was issued for the purpose of availing loan from Indian Bank alone. No probative value could be attached to a certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer to ascertain the ownership of the individual in an immovable property. While Varadharajan is unable to produce any documents, tracing his alleged title to the properties by production of necessary documents, the certificate given by the Village Administrative Officer will not stand for a minute's scrutiny. It is to be noted that by means of such certificate, title or possession of a property could not be and ought not to be decided. Further the said certificate shows only one Survey number namely 102 and other survey numbers are significantly absent. The necessary corollary would be, the writ petitioner is aa utter stranger to the property and he has no locus standi to initiate any proceedings with regard to the lands in question, and it is strange to see Ganapathy is standing as power of attorney to him.

8. It is the first contention of the appellant that no notice was served upon him to enable him to effectively participate in the land acquisition proceedings. As adverted to supra, since the appellant is not at all possessing any right or ownership over the properties acquired, no question of service of notice upon him would arise, since the revenue records would not show his name as owner. It is stated by the respondents that the legal heirs of Nagamuthu were served with notices properly. The learned Single Judge while discussing this point has elaborately dealt with the aspect. It is pertinent to note that the legal heirs of Nagamuthu Chettiar have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. Even Ganapathy, who, as son of Nagamuthu, has initiated the proceedings on behalf of the appellant as his power of attorney, has not moved even his little finger to question the acquisition proceedings.