Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2579 (MAD)

R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-06-21

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 26.6.1984 showing their intention to acquire the land situated at No.18, Edappadi (Post), Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District, for construction of houses under neighborhood scheme. The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act covered the land measuring 19.80 hectares (48.93 acre). This notification also covered the land belonging to grand mother of the petitioner in S.No.66/2 to an extent of 0.62 ½ total 1.67 ½ acres. 2. It is the submission of the petitioner that there was a delay in the process of acquisition which was entirely attributable to the respondents. The father of the petitioner and few others therefore filed WP.No.5083 of 1988 to challenge the notification under the land acquisition Act. This Court stayed further proceedings of acquisition. 3. Counter was filed to writ petition by Special Tahsildar, Salem taking a stand that though the notification was issued to acquire 19.8 hectares, but finally Award was passed only for the land measuring 9.58 hectares (23.68 acre). 4. It was also disclosed that the notification under Section 4 was issued on 26.6.1984 and the paper publication was carried out on 27.9.1984. 5. After hearing objections of the parties, the notification under Section 6 of the land acquisition Act was issued on 23.5.1986 and published in the Gazette on 25.5.1986. 6. Notices under Section 9 (1) and 10 of the land acquisition Act was issued to the land owners and interested parties on 08.4.1998. 7. The proceedings, as noticed above, were stayed by this Court on 23.4.1988, and the Award enquiry for the remaining land was held on 05.5.1998. 8. Award with respect to 23.68 acres was passed on 24.5.1988 and 27.5.1988. The Special Tahsildar also pointed out that the Award was only passed with respect to the land, which was not covered under Stay of this Court, whereas no Award was passed with respect to the land covered by stay granted by this Court. 9. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the meantime, on coming to know that the land of the petitioner was not acquired for acquisition, the father of the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 25.6.1991 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government, for exclusion of the land from acquisition proceedings. 10. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 25.6.1991 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government, for exclusion of the land from acquisition proceedings. 10. The submission of the petitioner is that, after the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents did not proceed with the acquisition qua the land of the petitioner and other adjacent land. 11. On enquiry by the petitioner, after the death of his father, the petitioner was informed that notification under Section 4(1) of the land acquisition Act with respect to the land of the petitioner had lapsed long back, therefore, the Housing Board had requested the State Government to issue fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act. 12. The petitioner, therefore made a representation for handing back the possession of the land in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed for want of award and also for release of the family land from acquisition proceedings. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the State Government. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter the petitioner is making continuous representations to the respondents for release of the petitioner's family land from acquisition proceedings. However, the petitioner has been informed that the request for acquisition of the land has been forwarded to the State Government. 14. From the pleaded facts, it is clear that the Special Tahsildar has informed the petitioner, that the acquisition proceedings initiated for the lands comprised in S.Nos.66/1 and 66/2 to an extent of 2.30 acres stand lapsed and that a fresh proposal has been submitted for acquisition of this land for implementation of the scheme by the Housing Board. 15. The petitioner sent a request under Rights to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the status of lands, when the petitioner was informed that out of lands in S.Nos.66/1, 66/2, and 78/1 the land in S.No.78/1 only has been acquired for the Housing Board, and that there is no bar for the registration of transfer documents with regard to land in S.Nos.66/1 and 66/2. 16. The petitioner was also served with letter dated 08.6.2011 issued by the third respondent dated 15.11.2007 furnishing the list of lands with details of Survey No. qua no registration of the sale deed can be effected. Even in this letter, the land of the petitioner is not covered. 17. 16. The petitioner was also served with letter dated 08.6.2011 issued by the third respondent dated 15.11.2007 furnishing the list of lands with details of Survey No. qua no registration of the sale deed can be effected. Even in this letter, the land of the petitioner is not covered. 17. The prayer in the writ petition therefore is, that the State Government was required to pass order declaring that the lands comprised in S.No.66/1 AND 66/2 was not required for acquisition in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. 18. In support of the prayer, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.42456 of 2006 (N.R. Sekar v. The district collector, salem district, salem), wherein this Court was pleased to direct the respondent to hand back the possession of the land acquired, as the possession of the land in that case was taken in violation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. 19. This judgment has no application to the case in hand, as admittedly, the possession of the land is continuous to be with the petitioner and as on date, there are no acquisition proceedings pending which may call for any action from the respondents. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon`ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.846 of 2006 (THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR V.N.R.SEKAR) decided on 11.1.2008 dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge. 21. Counter has been filed, wherein the stand taken by the respondents is that proposal has been sent to the State Government, for acquiring the land for implementation of the Neighborhood scheme. As on date there is no adverse proceedings against the petitioner, which could entitle the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the exercise of statutory function of the State Government in acquiring the land for public purpose. As and when notification is issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, it shall be open to the petitioner to file objection under Section 5(A) of the Act, which are to be decided in accordance with law. The writ petition, as framed, is totally misconceived and not maintainable No merit. Dismissed.