Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 345 (MAD)

Indhira v. District Collector, Madurai District

2016-01-29

N.KIRUBAKARAN, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. The writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.947 of 2012 is filed by the owners of certain lands, which were acquired under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, challenging an order of the learned Judge refusing to grant the relief of mutation in the revenue records even after the notification for acquisition was quashed. 2. Heard Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandiyan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Karunanidhi, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent. 3. By a notification issued on 21.07.1998, under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, the Government sought to acquire land of a total extent of about 1.26.5 Hectares, in various Survey Numbers in Kuravakudi Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, for the purpose of allotment of house-sites to Adi Dravidas. The notification/acquisition was challenged by the appellants herein, in a writ petition in W.P.No.2222 of 1999. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge, by an order dated 06.02.2007. The notification under Section 4(1) stood quashed by the said order of this Court. 4. Thereafter, the appellants sought a mandamus for effecting mutation in the revenue records. By an order dated 01.11.2010 passed in W.P(MD)No.12840 of 2010, a learned Judge directed the Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, to consider the representation and to pass orders. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, passed an order dated 17.02.2011, refusing to hand over the land back to the owners on the ground that the proceedings for acquisition are almost nearing completion. Therefore, the appellants came up with another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2012, challenging the said order and seeking a direction. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge, by an order dated 28.08.2012, on the ground that merely because the land acquisition proceedings were quashed, there is no automatic right to get the lands returned. Aggrieved by the said order, the land owners are on appeal. 6. The fact remains that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by virtue of a notification under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, dated 21.07.1998, stood quashed by a Judgment of this Court dated 06.02.2007. So far, the Government had not filed any appeal or issued any fresh notification. 6. The fact remains that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by virtue of a notification under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, dated 21.07.1998, stood quashed by a Judgment of this Court dated 06.02.2007. So far, the Government had not filed any appeal or issued any fresh notification. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the reasoning given by the learned Judge that the right to get the property back is not automatic. Once the acquisition proceedings is quashed in entirety, the vesting of the land that took place with the Government gets divested and revested with the owners. Therefore, the official respondents cannot refuse to hand over the property back to the original owners. 7. But it appears that the situation in this case has become little complicated with orders of allotment being issued in favour of 68 families belonging to Adi Dravida communities. Therefore, there was a problem with regard to actual physical possession, forcing the first appellant to come up with Crl.O.P(MD)No.21014 of 2015, seeking a direction to give police protection. That petition is also now before us. 8. On the last date of hearing, we directed the parties to find out if there are alternate lands available for those 68 families. No concrete information is available as on date. 9. There is also one more issue. The appellants herein are the owners of the lands in Survey Nos.16/9A, 16/9C, 23/4, 23/5A and 23/8A. The appellants are not the owners of the land in Survey No.23/2A. Therefore, the appellants cannot seek a mandamus to grant patta and hand over possession of somebody else's property. 10. Taking into account all the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of to the following effect: (i) The order of the learned Judge dated 28.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2012 is set aside. (ii) Within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it is open to the respondents to issue a fresh notification under the new Act. If they could not do so, the Revenue Authorities shall effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the appellants thereafter. (ii) Within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it is open to the respondents to issue a fresh notification under the new Act. If they could not do so, the Revenue Authorities shall effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the appellants thereafter. (iii) The District Collector shall take into account the constitutional obligations on their part and if for any reason, he is not able to issue a fresh notification, he shall at least identify alternate lands and allot to the 68 families within the said period. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 11. As a consequence of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is closed.