Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3576 (MAD)

Era. Soundara Pandian v. State of Tamil Nadu

2015-10-30

R.SUBBIAH

body2015
ORDER: Mr. R. Subbiah, J. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. There are totally six Writ Petitions. Out of which, the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.7413 of 2012 and 9309 and 9310 of 2014 have been filed by one Era.Soundra Pandian. Similarly, W.P.(MD).Nos.11236 to 11238 of 2014 have been filed by one Ranjithkani. 2.1. W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's patta land bearing No.T.S.No.2875 (old Mellavittan village-II, Survey No.678/B1) admeasuring an extent of about 19 cents situated in Thoothukudi Palayamkottai Road. 2.2. The facts averred in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012 are as follows:- It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a patta land in T.S.No.2875 to an extent of about 19 cents situated at Thoothukudi-Palayamkottai Road in Thoothukudi in the year 1969 through sale deeds Doc.Nos.3649 and 3650/1969 dated 18.09.1969 registered at the office of the Registrar at Madras. Ever since from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said land and paying all statutory taxes to the revenue and Corporation authorities. Originally, the said property belongs to one Joseph Periera which forms part of a larger extent of about 5.67 acres in S.No.678 of Mellavittan Village. The entire afore-said land was bifurcated into three parts, while the land in S.No.678 was acquired for the formation of Thoothukudi-Palayamkottai Road. The land situated in north of Palayamkottai Road was sub-divided as S.No.678/A in an extent of about 5.25 acres. The south of the Palayamkottai road was subdivided into S.No.678/B to an extent of 22 cents. Thereafter, the land bearing S.No. 678/B was again subdivided as S.No.678/B1 and 678/B2. S.No.678/B1 was purchased by the predecessors-in-title and subsequently the same was purchased by the petitioner. Similarly, S.No. 678/B2 was acquired for the formation of Korampallam pipeline. For the formation of Palamkottai Road, the land was sub-divided as S.No.678/C to an extent of about 20 cents. The land purchased by the petitioner is a patta land bearing T.S.No.2875 situated in S.No.678/B stated above and it is in between Thoothukudi Palayamkottai Road and Korampallam water pipe line. 2.3. For the formation of Palamkottai Road, the land was sub-divided as S.No.678/C to an extent of about 20 cents. The land purchased by the petitioner is a patta land bearing T.S.No.2875 situated in S.No.678/B stated above and it is in between Thoothukudi Palayamkottai Road and Korampallam water pipe line. 2.3. It is further averred in the affidavit that a part of land from the larger extent of 5.67 acres was purchased by one Kalyana Sundarathammal on 20.06.1928 from the estate of the above said Joseph Periera, after his death. Subsequently, the said Kalyana Sundarathammal sold her property in and by a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1942 to one T.M.Gomes. Thereafter, on 01.08.1961, the heirs of the said T.M.Gomes sold the property to an extent of 2.81 = acres (19 cents + 2.62 = acres) to the sons of Muthukaruppa Nadar on 01.08.1961 and the same was registered on the file of the SRO Thoothukudi, who thereafter sold the said property to the Educational Trustees Company Pvt.Ltd by a registered sale deed vide Doc.No. 2681/1961 registered at SRO Thoothukudi on 16.09.1961. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property to an extent of about 19 cents from B.Sivanthi Adithan, the Managing Director of Educational Trustees Company Private Ltd in and by registered Sale Deed document No.3649/69 and document No.3650 of 1969 dated 18.09.1969 to an extent of 6585 Sq.ft and 1500 Sq.ft respectively registered in the office of Registrar of Madras. Thereafter, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as on date and paying all statutory taxes. 2.4. Pursuant to the above-said purchase, land to an extent of 279 Sq.ft was acquired in eastern end point of S.No.678/B1 for the formation of Brayant Nagar Link Road. Accordingly, Land acquisition proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an award was passed to the petitioner vide Award No.1/76 dated 6.5.1976. The petitioner submitted an application dated 25.1.1974 to Thoothukudi Municipality to transfer the name in tax register maintained by the officials of Thoothukudi Municipality. Since the petitioner was asked to produce the documents to substantiate that he is the owner of the lands, the petitioner has produced the copies of the sale deed to the respondents. The petitioner submitted an application dated 25.1.1974 to Thoothukudi Municipality to transfer the name in tax register maintained by the officials of Thoothukudi Municipality. Since the petitioner was asked to produce the documents to substantiate that he is the owner of the lands, the petitioner has produced the copies of the sale deed to the respondents. Sofar as transfer of patta is concerned, the petitioner resubmitted application to the third respondent and after the perusal of sale deeds, the third respondent granted the patta in petitioner's name and patta No.TLR 1131 DTR 1669/89 dated 01.12.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner resubmitted petition on 28.11.2005 to the third respondent seeking computer patta based on the patta pass book. Based on the petition submitted by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi, conducted enquiry and rejected the claim of the petitioner on 24.7.2006 stating that the name of one Mr.Balasubramanian Adhithan son of S.T.Adhithan residing at Coimbatore was included in the registry of Thoothukudi Municipal records. However, the said Balasubramanian Adithan did not appear for the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 06.09.2006. Since it was not taken up an appeal, the petitioner constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7160 of 2011 before this Court seeking disposal of the said appeal within a time frame. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, on 27.3.2012 directing the second respondent therein to consider the above said appeal seeking computer patta within six weeks from the date of receipt of order. Till now, the appeal has not been disposed of by the second respondent. While the matter stood thus, on 30.5.2012, the respondents issued a notice to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner appeared through his Advocate and the efforts to demolish was timely thwarted. However, the neighbouring buildings of the petitioner were completely demolished on 30.5.2012 and 31.5.2012. In the back ground, the Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2.5. Notice regarding admission was ordered on 4.6.2012 and private notice was also permitted in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012. Apart from the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012, he also moved another two Writ Petitions, namely, W.P.(MD).Nos.9309 and 9310 of 2014. Challenging the show cause notice dated 28.02.2014, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9309 of 2014 has been filed. 2.5. Notice regarding admission was ordered on 4.6.2012 and private notice was also permitted in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012. Apart from the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012, he also moved another two Writ Petitions, namely, W.P.(MD).Nos.9309 and 9310 of 2014. Challenging the show cause notice dated 28.02.2014, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9309 of 2014 has been filed. By the said notice, the respondents therein wanted to acquire the land of the petitioner for purpose of laying Fly Over Bridge. 2.6. After reiterating the facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012, the petitioner has challenged the notice of the District Revenue Officer, dated 28.02.2014 through the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 9309 of 2014. 2.7. Likewise, the petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 21.06.2012 of the first respondent therein through a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No.9310 of 2010. By the said order, the first respondent has refused to include the petitioner's name in the Revenue Registry in respect of the land comprised in T.S.No.2875. 2.8. As far as W.P.(MD).Nos.11236 to 11238 of 2014 are concerned, all the three Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 28.02.2014 issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act of the third respondent for different properties. In the said Writ Petitions, it has been averred that the detailed project report for the formation of the proposed fly over at VVD Junction situated at Thoothukudi-Palayamkottai Road, Thoothukudi is prepared by a private project consultancy without consulting the local authorities. The detailed project report is prepared only with table measurements and not on ground reality. Further the Government has enacted "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2014 (L.A.Bill 5 of 2014) seeking to amend Act "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013' so as to continue the acquisition of lands under the enacted three Special State Acts for the land acquisition namely Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 for a limited period of one year from the date of commencement of the "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013". The said bill is still reserved for consideration of the President of India for receiving the assent. The said bill is still reserved for consideration of the President of India for receiving the assent. While so, the third respondent being the statutory authority has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner with a view to grab the property suppressing the new enactment and without following the procedures established therein. The land acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 which is guided by the repealed and replaced Land Acquisition Act 1894. In view of the enactment of the new "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013", the third respondent ought not to have chosen to issue the show cause notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act which is guided by the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the order passed by the third respondent is without jurisdiction. In view of the new Land Acquisition Act, the impugned show cause notice is void ab initio in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with these Writ Petitions for the relief stated supra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the new Act under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014. But the present notice was issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act on 28.2.2014. i.e.only after the new Act came into force. The new Act puts in place entirely new regime for compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new scheme for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or affected by such acquisition. Further, Government has enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2014, to continue the acquisition of lands under the enacted three Special State Acts for the land acquisition namely, Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 for a limited period of one year from the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. However, the said bill is still reserved for the consideration of the President of India for receiving the assent. However, the said bill is still reserved for the consideration of the President of India for receiving the assent. In spite of all these facts, the third respondent has issued the present notice dated 28.02.2014 for the formation of the fly over at V.V.D.Junction, Palayamkottai Road, Thoothukudi, without following the procedures stated in the new Act, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2014. Knowing fully well that the new Act is more beneficial than the old Act, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2013, wantonly the respondent has chosen to issue a notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Therefore, the notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District, is ex facie illegal and the said impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 3.1. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.9309 of 2014 submitted that the notice was wantonly issued to a dead person, namely, in the name of S.T.Adithan in spite of the fact the petitioner has purchased the property in question way back in the year 1969 from one B.Sivanthi Adithan for which patta was also issued. In this regard, the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court regarding 21(2) of the New Act and submitted that notice has to be issued to the interested person. In the instant case, when the petitioner is having patta, the notice has been issued in the name of a dead person. Hence, he prayed for the quashing of the order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 28.2.2014. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is true that notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act has been issued. Even as per Section 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, interested person can raise his objections. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General by inviting the attention of the Court regarding Section 114 of the Act, submitted that the new Act repeals only the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and not The Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Even as per Section 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, interested person can raise his objections. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General by inviting the attention of the Court regarding Section 114 of the Act, submitted that the new Act repeals only the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and not The Tamil Nadu Highways Act. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by way of amendment added the Fifth Schedule by inserting Section 105-A in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2013, whereby, it is clear that the Act will not apply to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001. 4.1. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that since in the municipal records stand in the name of S.T.Adidyan, notice was issued to the said S.T.Adidyan. However, notice was received and signed by Era.Soundara Pandian. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7413 of 2012 cannot make hue and cry that no notice has been issued to him and the same has been issued to the dead person. As an interested person of the lands in question, he can always submit his objections. But, the project is for the beneficial of the public at large and that cannot be stalled on any ground. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 5. I heard the submissions made by the parties concerned and perused the materials available on record. 6. Keeping the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the respondents have issued a notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. The main point urged in this Writ Petition by the learned counsel for the petitioners that instead of invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2013, the respondents has issued notice under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. However, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2014 came into force only on 1.1.2014. As per the amendment act, the V Schedule is added. The Acts listed in the V Schedule, the operation of the Principle Act is dispensed with. As per the amendment act, the V Schedule is added. The Acts listed in the V Schedule, the operation of the Principle Act is dispensed with. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002) also inserted in the V schedule. Accordingly, the new Act under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2013 is not applicable in the question of land acquisition under Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Further, under Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, only the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is repealed. The objects and reasons are narrated under Section 105- A. When the provisions of the Act has no applicability in the Highways Act, the contention of the petitioners that notice issued under Section 15(2) is illegal, cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not merit for consideration. As for as non-issuance of notice to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 7413 of 2012 is concerned, on a perusal of the notice issued, it is seen that the Writ Petitioner, namely, Era.Soundara Pandian himself is a signatory. Furthermore, the name of the dead person was mentioned in the municipal records. Therefore, the respondents have no other go but to issue notice as per the municipal records for which the respondents could not be found fault with. Be that as it may, as per the Act, the person interested can always raise objections. Without doing so, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, the Writ Petitions are decided in the following manner:- (i) As far as mutation of revenue records, the petitioner, namely, Era.Soundar pandiyan, is directed to work out his remedy before the Civil Court as time and again this Court as well as the Supreme Court has reiterated the fact that this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry with regard to the disputed questions of facts as well as title of the lands in question. (ii) As far as the other Writ Petitions are concerned, the same is dismissed as they are devoid of merits. (iii) No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Ordered accordingly.