Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1528 (MAD)

B. Purushothaman v. District Collector Cuddalore

2012-03-28

B.RAJENDRAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal inasmuch as the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same. 2. The common averments of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is as follows:- (i) The case of the petitioner in WP No. 28445 of 2010 is that he purchased agricultural lands measuring 3 acres 33 cents out of 6 acres 78 cents comprised in Survey No.170/1 and 170/2 of Keezh Arungunam Village, Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District from one Baskaran Reddiar by a sale deed dated 21.12.2009 bearing document No. 3319 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nellikuppam. (ii) The case of the petitioner in WP No. 29446 of 2010 is that he purchased 3 acres 36 cents out of 6 acres 78 cents in Survey No.170/1 and 170/2 of Keezh Arungunam Village, Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District from the said Baskaran Reddiar by a sale deed dated 18.02.2010 registered as document No. 480 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nellikuppam. (iii) The lands in the above said survey numbers were acquired by the respondents by initiating proceedings under Act 31 of 1978. The respondents have issued notice in Form I of Act 31 of 178 under Rule 3 (1) of the Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 on 09.08.2001, which was objected to by the Original owner Baskaran Reddiar. The objections made by the original owner Baskaran Reddyar were overruled by the first respondent on 11.07.2002. Therefore, the said Baskaran Reddiar filed W.P. No. 32001 of 2002 befog this Court challenging the order of rejection passed by the first respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.03.2007. (iv) The respondents issued another form I notice in February 2008 to the original owner Baskaran Reddiar and he again objected to the same by stating that he had mortgaged the property with State Bank of India, Cuddalore for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-on 26.07.2007 after dismissal of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, no order was passed by the respondents thereafter in respect of the acquisition proceedings and therefore it was construed that the entire acquisition proceedings are abandoned. According to the petitioners, no order was passed by the respondents thereafter in respect of the acquisition proceedings and therefore it was construed that the entire acquisition proceedings are abandoned. On such assumption, the petitioners having satisfied that the entire acquisition has been abandoned in respect of the lands in question, purchased the lands from Baskaran Reddiar by means of registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2009 and 18.02.2010 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner in WP No. 29445 of 2010 in turn sold the property in favour of one Kavitha by a sale deed dated 20.10.2010 bearing document No. 3095 of 2010 on the file of Sub Registrar, Nellikuppam and the petitioner in WP No. 29446 of 2010 sold the property in favour of Ayyathurai and others by a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2010 registered as document No. 1810 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nellikuppam. In the meantime, on 09.06.2010, the form I notice was issued by the respondents proposing to acquire land to an extent of 3.33 acres out of 6 acre and 78 cents. On receipt of the notice in form I, the petitioners submitted their objection on 28.06.2010 stating that they have purchased the lands measuring 3.33 acres and they are the true and lawful owner of the property by referring to the form I notice issued to his vendor Mr. Bhaskaran Reddiar. (v) The petitioners also contend that the harijans are living 11 kilometers away from the proposed site and therefore, those lands need not be allotted as house sites to the harijans. After such objection, according to the petitioners, nothing was heard from the respondents and no order was passed by the respondents. However, the first respondent acquired the lands measuring a total extent of 2 hectares and 49 ares in Survey No.170/1 and 22 ares in Survey No.170/2 under Section 4 (1) of the Act which are in possession of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the notice in form II dated 28.09.2010 is without reference to his objection dated 23.06.2010. After the objection, no orders have been passed as provided under Section 4 (3) (b) of the Act. After issuance of the notice under form I, the second respondent must have sent his report to the first respondent either recommending for acquisition or accepting the objection of the petitioners to drop the proceedings, but the same was not done in this case. After issuance of the notice under form I, the second respondent must have sent his report to the first respondent either recommending for acquisition or accepting the objection of the petitioners to drop the proceedings, but the same was not done in this case. Obtaining a report from the authorised officer after a reply to the show cause notice is the first mandatory step required to be done before the first respondent declares the acquisition under form II as per Section 4 (1) of the Act and noncompliance of the same vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. There was no personal hearing given to the petitioners before the lands were ordered to be acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In any event, there is no necessity for acquiring the lands from the petitioners and therefore the entire proceedings lacks bonafides inasmuch as there are government poromboke lands available which will be more suitable for implementation of the scheme for allotment of house sites. 3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that earlier, notice issued by the respondents was challenged by the original owner Baskaran Reddiar in W.P. No. 32001 of 2002 which was dismissed by this Court on 20.03.2007. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the property from the original owner Baskaran Reddiar and they in turn sold the property in favour of Ms. Kavitha and Aiyathurai and others respectively. Therefore, as on date, the petitioners are not the owners of the lands in question and they cannot have any locus standi to file the present writ petitions. The objections raised by the original owner Baskaran Reddiar were overruled by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 06.07.2002 and the copy of the same was sent to the then owner namely Baskaran Reddiar and he also received it. The first form I notice was sent to the original owner Baskaran Reddiar before acquisition of the lands in the year 2001, the second notice was issued after the writ petition filed by the original owner was dismissed and the third notice was sent to the new owners namely the petitioners herein even though it was not necessary, since the respondents came to know that the original owner had sold the lands to the petitioners, such notice was sent to them. The averment that the land acquisition proceedings have been abandoned by the respondents is incorrect. The averment that the land acquisition proceedings have been abandoned by the respondents is incorrect. The scheme was not abandoned as alleged by the petitioners and the scheme is in vogue for providing house sites to homeless adi dravidars. The administrative delayed process has been misconstrued by the petitioners as if the scheme was abandoned by the respondents. As per the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1988, issue of notice under Section 3 (1) only is mandatory and form III under Section 5 of the Act is not necessary at all. In any event, the respondents have complied with all the mandatory provisions of the Act. Furthermore, the awarding of compensation for the lands acquired is under due process as per Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, the relief sought for in this writ petition need not be granted. 4. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. It is true that the lands were originally owned by Baskaran Reddiar. The petitioner in WP No. 29445 of 2010 purchased 3 acres 33 cents out of 6 acres 78 cents from the said Baskara Reddiar by a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2009. The petitioner in WP No. 29446 of 2010 purchased the remaining 3 acres 36 cents out of 6 acres 78 cents in Survey No.170/1 and 170/2 from Baskaran Reddiar by a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2010. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner in WP No. 29445 of 2010 sold the lands purchased by him in favour of one Kavitha by a registered sale deed dated 20.10.2010 and the petitioner in WP No. 29446 of 2010 sold the property in favour of Ayyathurai and others by a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2010. Therefore, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners without any right of ownership over the lands in question. 5. The respondents have issued form I notice under Section 3 (1) of Act 31 of 1978 to the original owner Mr. Bhaskaran Reddiar on 09.08.2011 for which he submitted his objections on 11.09.2011. The objections were over ruled by the first respondent by an order dated 11.07.2002. Challenging the same, the original owner Baskaran Reddiar filed WP No. 32001 of 2002 before this Court and that was dismissed on 20.03.2007. Bhaskaran Reddiar on 09.08.2011 for which he submitted his objections on 11.09.2011. The objections were over ruled by the first respondent by an order dated 11.07.2002. Challenging the same, the original owner Baskaran Reddiar filed WP No. 32001 of 2002 before this Court and that was dismissed on 20.03.2007. Pursuant to the same, the respondents issued notices under Sections 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the Act 31 of 1978. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the order passed by this Court on 20.03.2007 in WP No. 32001 of 2002, wherein in para Nos. 25 and 28, it was held as follows:- "25.) In the instant case, after complying with all formalities such as issuance of notice in Form I under section 4 (1) of the Act and completion of an enquiry under Section 4 (2) of the Act, the second respondent namely, the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) submitted necessary proposals to the Cuddalore District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer recommending acquisition of petitioner's land measuring 2.7.10 hectares in Keezharungunam Village. After due consideration of the records available and the objection filed by the petitioner, an order dated 11.07.2002 under Section 4 (3) (b) has been made to acquire the land and the said order is impugned in this writ petition. After sending a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the petitioner which was received by him on 28.08.2001, an enquiry under Section 4 (2) of the Act was also conducted by the second respondent and the petitioner had filed his objection on 11.09.2001. After perusal of the records and the objection filed by the petitioner, his objection was rejected by way of the impugned order dated 11.07.2002. From this, it can be seen that the procedures contemplated under the Act have been duly complied with. 26..... 27..... 28.) It is not the case of the petitioner that the District Collector has not applied his mind and the provision under Section 4 (2) has not been complied with. What is now contended by the petitioner is that under Section 4 (3) (b), whether the officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon him to show cause as to why the land in question should not be acquired. What is now contended by the petitioner is that under Section 4 (3) (b), whether the officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon him to show cause as to why the land in question should not be acquired. In the case on hand, after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, the first respondent, namely the District Collector has passed the order under challenge. Of course, it is to be seen whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the issuance of the impugned order and whether the first respondent has given due consideration with proper application of mind to all the objections raised by the petitioner. 6. It is evident that this Court has categorically given a finding that the procedures contemplated under the Act have been duly complied with by the respondents in respect of the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings . In the said order dated 20.03.2007, this Court elaborately considered all the contentions raised on both sides and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. 7. It is seen from the records that the petitioner in WP No. 29445 of 2010 purchased the property from the original owner Bhaskaran Reddiar on 21.12.2009 and the petitioner in WP No. 29446 of 2010 purchased the remaining 3 acres 36 cents out of 6 acres 78 cents from Baskaran Reddiar by a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2010. It is evident that such purchases were made after the issuance of form I notice dated 09.08.2001 as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Act in the name of the original owner Baskaran Reddiar. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings were given a go-bye and the entire acquisition proceedings have been dropped or abandoned cannot be accepted. In fact, the original owner Baskaran Reddiar challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing WP No. 32001 of 2002 before this Court and it was dismissed on 20.03.2007. On coming to know the sale made by Baskaran Reddiar in favour of the petitioners, a form I notice dated 09.06.2010 was issued to the petitioners. On receipt of the form I notice, the petitioners have conveniently sold the property to one Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others. On coming to know the sale made by Baskaran Reddiar in favour of the petitioners, a form I notice dated 09.06.2010 was issued to the petitioners. On receipt of the form I notice, the petitioners have conveniently sold the property to one Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners, knowing fully well that the lands in question are subjected to acquisition proceedings, have sold the lands in favour of Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents that after purchase of the property, the petitioners have divided the lands into plots and formed a layout in the name of Poyyamozhi Vinayagar Nagar for which they have no right especially when the lands are subjected to acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have converted the agricultural lands into plot especially after receipt of the form I notice issued by the respondents under Section 3 (1) of the Act, which they are not authorised to do. 9. It is also evident from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that the first notice under Section 3 (1) of the Act was issued to the original owner Baskaran Reddiar in the year 2001, the second notice was issued in the year 2008 and the third notice was issued to the petitioners on coming to know that the petitioners have purchased the lands from the said Baskaran Reddiar. All these three notices in form I are in respect of the same lands and in respect of the same survey numbers and therefore, it is futile on the part of the petitioners to contend that the scheme for providing house sites to homeless Adi Dravidars has been abandoned or dropped by the respondents. 10. It is pertinent to point out that originally, Baskaran Reddiar, original owner, filed WP No. 32001 of 2002 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 20.03.2007. The order dated 20.03.2007 reached finality inasmuch as neither the petitioners' vendor Baskaran Reddiar nor the petitioners, after purchasing the properties from Baskaran Reddiar, have filed an appeal till date. Even other wise, the petitioners have sold the lands purchased by them to Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others by means of a registered sale deed and therefore, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions. 11. Even other wise, the petitioners have sold the lands purchased by them to Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others by means of a registered sale deed and therefore, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court reported in (Loganathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and others) (2007) Writ Law Reporter 432 and (Theerthagiri vs. District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri and another) (2010) 7 MLJ 168 to contend that the objections made by the petitoiners have not been properly considered by the respondents and no opportunity was afforded to them before acquiring their lands. 12. First of all, the petitioners have not filed any appeal as against the order dated 20.03.2007 passed by this Court WP No. 32001 of 2002, which was filed by the original owner Baskaran Reddiar. The said writ petition was filed by the original owner Baskaran Reddiar challenging the order of rejection, overruling his objections to the notice issued in Form I of Act 31 of 178 under Rule 3 (1) of the Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 on 09.08.2001, Therefore, the present claim of the petitioners, who are the subsequent purchasers of the lands in question, that their objections have not been properly considered or they were not given opportunities does not arise. Therefore, the facts involved in the above decisions relied on by the petitioners will not apply to the facts of the present case. 13. In the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in (R. Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai and another) (2006) 4 CTC 609 , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that mere non-furnishing of the copy of the report by the District Collector to the land owner will not by itself vitiate the acquisition proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. Therefore, this decision will not be applicable to the claim of the petitioners that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory procedures required under the Act or they were not given opportunity of hearing. Therefore, this decision will not be applicable to the claim of the petitioners that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory procedures required under the Act or they were not given opportunity of hearing. In any event, in the present case, the petitioners have sold the lands in question to one Kavitha and Ayyathurai and others and presently they are not the owners of the lands. Even the petitioners purchased the lands in question when the lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.