S. Chandramohan v. State rep. by the Secretary to Government
2014-08-06
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reconvey the land, comprised in Survey No.141/1A1 of Madapuram Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, measuring an extent of 1.84.0 Hectares i.e., 4.55 Acres, based on the recommendations of the third respondent. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: 2. The land in question belongs to the petitioner, he having purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dated 28.02.1984. During 1991, the fourth respondent namely the Managing Director, State Transport Corporation, Madurai, proposed to construct a depot and for which purpose land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Central Act to acquire the petitioner's land. The land acquisition proceedings had been completed and the land has vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. The compensation amount has been deposited in the Court and the petitioner has not taken steps to receive the amount from Court. The petitioner would state that though the lands were acquired during 1991, the lands remained un-utilized and therefore he submitted a representation to the fourth respondent to hand over the property back to the petitioner as the same has not been utilized for several years. 3. Further, the petitioner would state that the fourth respondent in it's Board Meeting resolved to hand over the land back to the petitioner and the resolution to the said effect was passed on 26.12.2003 subject to certain conditions. The third respondent is said to have fixed the amount of Rs.12,83,680/- being the amount payable for reconveyance. The petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the amount and accept the reconveyance. The third respondent recommended the case of the petitioner for reconveyance and in spite of such recommendation, since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1197 of 2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner came to know that orders have been passed on his application for reconveyance and in the light of the same, that writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1197 of 2011 was withdrawn and closed. 4. The petitioner would further state that subsequently he came to know that no orders have been passed and hence he filed this writ petition for the aforementioned relief contending that for nearly 25 years the acquired lands have not been utilized.
4. The petitioner would further state that subsequently he came to know that no orders have been passed and hence he filed this writ petition for the aforementioned relief contending that for nearly 25 years the acquired lands have not been utilized. It is further submitted that just prior to the filing of the writ petition, he came to know that the fourth respondent has now proposed to construct workshop, rest room and canteen for employees and this according to the petitioner cannot be done because the land was acquired for a different purpose. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner's application for reconveyance is still pending and the recommendation made by the third respondent is also on file and therefore, the petitioner seeks for direction upon the respondents to reconvey the acquired land to him. 5. Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for Mr. R. Maheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborately set out the facts of the case and referred to the resolution passed by the fourth respondent, dated 26.12.2003, report sent to the Government by the Transport Department, dated 24.07.2004, recommendatory proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 27.12.2004 and the Proceedings of the Land Commissioner addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 23.11.2005 calling upon the Revenue Divisional Officer to state whether the land is required for any other purpose and submitted that all these factors would go to show that the land in question was not required for the purpose for which the land was acquired. 6. It is further submitted that only during December, 2006, the fourth respondent resolved to rescind the earlier resolution No.183, dated 26.12.2003 and now they proposed to construct the workshop and other facilities under a different scheme. It is submitted by the learned counsel that without passing an order under Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, it may be referred to as 'the Act'), the respondents cannot proceed further as the petitioner is precluded from testing correctness of the decision. It is submitted that the fourth respondent Corporation having already resolved during 2003 to return the land and forwarded the same to the Government, it is only the Government, which has to decide the matter and the fourth respondent cannot now rescind the earlier resolution.
It is submitted that the fourth respondent Corporation having already resolved during 2003 to return the land and forwarded the same to the Government, it is only the Government, which has to decide the matter and the fourth respondent cannot now rescind the earlier resolution. Further, it is submitted that by virtue of the earlier resolution, dated 30.11.2006, in resolution No.198, the fourth respondent is attempting to foreclose the right of the Government under Section 16(B) of the Act. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's land was requisitioned by the fourth respondent for a particular purpose and it shall be used by the fourth respondent for the said purpose alone and the present resolution passed during 2003 is for a different purpose. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shanmugam, R. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 290 . 7. It is further submitted that the decision of the Government is liable to be tested on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or whether the same is arbitrary or on the other grounds and in the absence of any order, the petitioner cannot question the order passed by the Government. Further, it is submitted that it is the Government, which has to exercise it's power under Section 16(B) of the Act and therefore the Government should take a decision in the matter. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. Rajeswari Venkatesan, reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 1327 and the decision in the case of Prithvi Trust Private Ltd., v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2005 (3) CTC 145. 8. Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. A.P. Muthupandian, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the Award in the land acquisition proceedings was passed on 12.02.1991 and the possession was taken on 11.04.1991. The Sub Court, Sivagangai passed an order in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1991 granting enhanced compensation by Judgment dated 30.11.1993, as against which an appeal has been preferred in A.S.No.485 of 1998, which is still pending. Further, on 16.07.1993, the amount as ordered by the Reference Court has been deposited.
The Sub Court, Sivagangai passed an order in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 1991 granting enhanced compensation by Judgment dated 30.11.1993, as against which an appeal has been preferred in A.S.No.485 of 1998, which is still pending. Further, on 16.07.1993, the amount as ordered by the Reference Court has been deposited. It is further submitted that the resolution, dated 26.12.2003, passed by the third respondent for returning the land did not materialize and the resolution was not acted upon. Subsequently, on 30.11.2006, a resolution has been passed cancelling the earlier proposal dated 26.12.2003 to withdraw the decision to return the land. Therefore, it is submitted that once the land, which was acquired has vested with the Government, the petitioner has no vested right of reconveyance. 9. Further, it is submitted that after taking possession of the land, construction has been put up by the fourth respondent and the land has been occupied, Well has been erected, generator room and compound wall have been constructed. It is further submitted that the present tender notification, dated 08.07.2013 is for the purpose of establishing a depot and the items of work mentioned therein are all required for establishment of a depot. Further, it is submitted that work order for construction had been issued on 28.02.2014 to one Mr. T. Saravanakumar and 25% of work has already been completed and only on account of the order of status quo passed by this Court in the writ petition the work has been stalled. 10. Further, it is submitted that Section 16(B) of the Act has no application to the facts of the case as no forfeiture has taken place and once the land has vested with the Transport Corporation, the Government cannot interfere in the matter. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-600 035 vs. S. Gajendran and another, reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 643 . 11. The learned Additional Advocate General, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 432 , submitted that even in respect of unused land, the same should be put to public auction and the question of returning of the same to the erstwhile owner was held to be improper.
Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1628 . 12. Mr. D. Muruganatham, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the first respondent and Mr. S. Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 2 and 3 have adopted the stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 14. The first aspect that has to be considered is as to whether the Government forfeited the land from the fourth respondent Corporation. Unless and until, such forfeiture has been taken place, the petitioner, erstwhile land owner, cannot approach the Government for re-conveying the land under Section 48(B) of the Act. An application for reconveyance could be considered if the land is in possession of the Government and once possession has been handed over, the requisition body in the instant case the State Transport Corporation has no jurisdiction to consider the request of the reconveyance by the petitioner, the erstwhile land owner. 15. Section 16(B) of the Act states that where the Government are satisfied that the land acquired under this Act for any public purpose as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 4 is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, they may, by an order, forfeit the land as penalty and the land shall vest in the Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances. 16. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 16(B) of the Act, no records have been placed before this Court to show that the land has been forfeited by the Government from the fourth respondent Transport Corporation. In such circumstances, the application made under Section 48(B) of the Act itself is not maintainable and a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to consider such application cannot be issued. This view is supported by the decision of the Honourable Division Bench in the case of MD, TNHB (cited supra). 17. Once we steer clear of this legal position and on perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that the entire case of the petitioner rests upon certain internal communication between the Transport Corporation, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Commissioner.
17. Once we steer clear of this legal position and on perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that the entire case of the petitioner rests upon certain internal communication between the Transport Corporation, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Commissioner. It is no doubt true that the resolution was passed by the fourth respondent, on 26.12.2003. The proposal was forwarded to the Government during 2004 and intimation thereof was also given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the fourth respondent has already surrendered it's rights over the property in question and it is for the Government to take a decision in the matter. The proposal sent to the Government was to the effect that the land is not suitable as required for the purpose of constructing a depot. However, the same is stated as a proposal alone and it did not fructify into a final decision. Therefore, the proceedings or recommendations made by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the internal correspondence between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Commissioner are of little avail. As long as the Government has not taken any decision on the resolution, dated 26.12.2003, and exercised it's rights under Section 16(B) of the Act there is no forfeiture over the land in dispute and the Government has not taken control over the land and the land continues to vest with the fourth respondent Corporation. Within the period of three years another resolution was passed by the fourth respondent on 30.11.2006 rescinding the earlier resolution, dated 26.12.2003. Therefore, the issue has culminated with the resolution, dated 30.11.2006. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot harp upon the resolution, dated 26.12.2003, which stood rescinded during 2006. In any even, there is no challenge to the resolution, dated 30.11.2006. It is needless to state that any such challenge at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable. The fourth respondent, therefore, proceeded to take a decision to provide certain features, which are essentially required for a bus depot. Therefore, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the tender notification, dated 08.07.2013 stands vitiated. It is for the fourth respondent to decide as what are the amenities required to be provided for the depot. 18.
Therefore, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the tender notification, dated 08.07.2013 stands vitiated. It is for the fourth respondent to decide as what are the amenities required to be provided for the depot. 18. The decision in the case of Prithvi Trust Private Ltd., (cited supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case. In the said decision, the Government took a stand that the land has already been vested with the Housing Board and the Government cannot pass any orders under Section 48(B) of the Act and reliance was placed on an earlier decision. Considering the facts of the case, Court observed that contradictory statements were made in the counter affidavit, which lead to the conclusion that there was a serious doubt as to whether the Housing Board had made up mind to utilise the land for any public purpose. Under those circumstances, after referring to the earlier decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the Court cannot compel the Government to withdraw acquisition proceedings or to restore the possession to the owner of the land, disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to writ petitioner to request the Government to exercise power under Section 16(B) of the Act. 19. In the instant case, no such direction can be issued in the light of the resolution No.198, dated 30.11.2006, rescinding the earlier resolution, dated 26.12.2003. Therefore, on facts, it has to be held that Section 16(B) of the Act would have no application to the present case and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shanmugam. R (cited supra) do not render any support to the case of the petitioner. In the light of the above facts, this is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for. 20. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.