Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2152 (MAD)

Jewana Gowder v. The District Collector & Others

2003-12-29

P.K.MISRA

body2003
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the Collector in R.C.H.8/27884/2002 dated 19.7.2002 and has prayed for direction to pay compensation for the lands measuring an extent of 0.10 acres at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent. 3. From the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it appears that certain lands of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents, but, the respondents have taken possession of the land in excess of the acquired lands. At that time, the petitioner had made a representation stating that he should be paid compensation considering the location and future fetching price for his acquired lands. Such representation was not acceptable to the Collector, who under the impugned order has observed that land Acquisition proceedings would be taken for acquisition of land in accordance with Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Act, 1978. It is further stated that though the present disputed land had not been acquired, the respondents had taken forcible possession of the said land. 4. There is no dispute that private land can be acquired for public purposes. However, it is always expected that, without following the procedure of law, no person should be deprived of his property and therefore, respondents cannot take forcible possession of the land belonging to a private individual without resorting to the appropriate proceedings contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Under the impugned order, it seems that the amount claimed by the petitioner for the disputed land is not acceptable to the respondent and an observation has been made that steps should be taken for acquisition of land. However, it seems that because of the stay order, Acquisition Proceedings has not been started. Be that as it may, since the land of the petitioner has been forcibly occupied by the respondents, it is directed that the respondents should initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law within a reasonable time or they should return the disputed land under their forcible occupation to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, since the land of the petitioner has been forcibly occupied by the respondents, it is directed that the respondents should initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law within a reasonable time or they should return the disputed land under their forcible occupation to the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances of the case, it is directed that if appropriate land acquisition proceedings are not completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order, the respondents should vacate the land and hand over the same to the petitioner, who shall be free to take possession after the expiry of the said period. However, if land acquisition proceedings, as contemplated under law, is completed, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law either for quashing the land acquisition proceedings or for payment of enhanced compensation, if the compensation offered is not acceptable . 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.