Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2162 (MAD)

Ramani v. State of Tamil Nadu

2018-07-19

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2018
ORDER : 1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to issue an order of exemption, exempting the lands in Survey Nos.14/2C, 14/3A and 14/5C of Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai under Section 24(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, to secure the ends of justice. 2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners state that the third writ petitioner Mr.A.P.Murali Sekar filed the affidavit in the writ petition. The first and the second writ petitioners are the sister and brother of the third writ petitioner and all of them are the legal heirs of Mr.Ponnappa Mudaliar. Panjakalyani Ponnappan along with one Mr.A.P.Rajasekar, who is residing at the United States of America along with Mr.Ponnappa Mudaliar, are the joint owners and all of them were having common interest. Thus, the writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners claim that all the writ petitioners are the owners of the agricultural lands in Survey No.142/C for an extent of 32 cents, 143/A for an extent of 1.02 acres and 145/C for an extent of 8 cents and the said agricultural lands are the only source of income for the writ petitioners. The said lands were sought to be acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.138, Housing Department, dated 14.5.1975 and the publication in the Government Gazette was effected on 11.6.1975. The writ petitioners admit that an award was passed and they are affected from and out of the said award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The land acquisition proceedings were challenged by Dr. D.C. Kothari Nagar Welfare Association and they filed a writ petition in WP No.12040 of 1986 and interim order was granted in respect of the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petitioners also joined in the above writ petition and it is stated in the affidavit by the writ petitioners that the Government promised to grant exemption in the event of withdrawing the writ petition. However, the details of promise or any such written document has not been submitted in the present writ petition. 5. The writ petitioners also joined in the above writ petition and it is stated in the affidavit by the writ petitioners that the Government promised to grant exemption in the event of withdrawing the writ petition. However, the details of promise or any such written document has not been submitted in the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners urged this Court by stating that the first respondent in letter dated 14.6.1989 passed an order that the lands to an extent of 21.22 acres in Survey Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 in Ramapuram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Saidapet, Chinglepet District are exempted from the land acquisition proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Relying on the said document, the writ petitioners are of the opinion that the lands were already exempted by the Government and therefore, it is free from the land acquisition proceedings and accordingly, they are entitled to possess the lands in question. Under these circumstances, the third respondent and the subordinate officials made an attempt to dispossess the writ petitioners from the lands and the mother of the writ petitioners filed a writ petition for a direction to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioners. 6. A Writ Appeal in W.A.No., 1788 of 2002 was also filed to consider the representation dated 6.10.2003. The Hon'ble Division Bench also directed the authorities to consider the representation. The writ petitioners claim that one Mr.Ramu Naicker and four others filed WP No.14166 of 2001 and the same was also allowed by this Court on 13.6.2013, stating that the respondents are directed to issue an order of exemption in respect of their lands. The case of the writ petitioners are also similar to that of the one filed by Mr.Ramu Naicker and therefore, the similar exemption is to be granted. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners state that the Government has already granted an exemption in letter dated 14.6.1989 and therefore, the interference of the respondents in respect of the lands belong to the writ petitioners are unwarranted. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, by stating that the entire case of the writ petitioners are false and frivolous. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, by stating that the entire case of the writ petitioners are false and frivolous. The writ petitioners have placed incorrect facts before this Court in order to grab the lands, which were already acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and, the entire acquisition proceedings were concluded and the lands were also in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus, the writ petitioners, only with an idea to grab the said lands in an illegal manner, have filed the present writ petition and thus the writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Nandhanam, Chennai-35, filed a report on 13.7.2018, which reads as under:- “Tamil Nadu Housing Board Position Note in respect of WP 11352 of 2014 filed by Tmt. Ramani and others regarding land in Survey Nos.14/2C, 14/3A and 14/5C of Ramapuram Village An extent of 421.26 acres of land in Ramapuram Village of Ambathur Taluk in Thiruvallur District were notified for acquisition under the LA Act for the Formation of New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The draft 4(1) Notification for an extent of 338.28 acres was approved by Government in its G.O.Ms.No.138, Housing Department, dated 14.5.1975. For the purpose of taking further action to submit Draft Declaration and other follow up action, the entire extent of 338.28 acres was split up into nine convenience blocks. The lands bearing Survey Nos.14/2C, 14/3A and 14/5C formed part of block No. I measuring 46.04 acres for which the draft declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.962, Housing, dated 7.6.1978. Award was passed for an extent of 21.22 acres in Award No.5/86 dated 29.8.1986 including petitioner land. The details of petitioner land as follows: Survey No. Extent in Acres Name of land owner/interested person as per 4(1) notification (14.5.1975) Name of land owner/interested person as per 6 DD (7.6.1978) Name of land owner as per Revenue Record (Chitta Adangal) (23.5.1985) Name of land owner/interested person as per award No.5/86, dated 29.8.1986 14/2C 0.46 Ekambaram and Panchakalyani Ammal Ekambaram Ekambaram Naicker and Panchakalyani Ammal Thiru Ekambara Naicker and Panchakalyani Ammal. They sold 8 cents to Thiru Ramu vide Doc.1204/2.7.75. 14/3A 1.17 Panchakalyani Ammal Panchakalyani Ammal Maari Naicker and Panchakalyani Ammal Tmt. They sold 8 cents to Thiru Ramu vide Doc.1204/2.7.75. 14/3A 1.17 Panchakalyani Ammal Panchakalyani Ammal Maari Naicker and Panchakalyani Ammal Tmt. Panchakalyani 14/5C 0.08 Panchakalyani Ammal Panchakalyani Ammal Panchakalyani Ammal Tmt. Panchakalyani The above land owners has not appeared for award enquiry and establish their ownership, hence award amount was ordered to be deposited in the Civil Court Deposit at Sub Court, Poonamallee and the matter is referred to Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession of above lands was taken over by Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. Tmt. Ramani and others, stating that they are the legal heirs of Tmt. Panchakalyaniammal and filed the WP No.11352 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court to release their land in S.No.142C, 14/3A and 14/5C of Ramapuram Village from acquisition under Section 24(2) of LA Act 30/2013. The petitioner cannot get any relief from 24(2) of LA Act, since the above land was award passed, possession taken over and award amount deposited in the CCD. The petitioner in their affidavit informed that they are also one of the petitioner in WP 12040/86 filed by Kothari Welfare Association requesting exclusion of their land from acquisition. The WP 12040/86 was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.6.1989. Out of 21.22 acres of land, the Kothari Nagar Welfare Association requested to exclude only an extent of 18.25 acres, since land owners of 2.97 acres have cancelled the sale agreement between them and Kothari Employees Union have also returned the advance amount to them. Petitioner land is included in 2.97 acres and not in 18.25 acres which was excluded by Government, hence the petitioner land is in acquisition. The details of cases filed by land owner as follows: Case No. Petitioner Name Prayer Judgment Action taken report WP 16051/93 Panchakalyani and 4 others Requesting exclusion Dismissed on 27.6.2000 WA 1788/2002 in WP 16051/93 Panchakalyani and 4 others Against the High Court order dated 27.6.2000 in WP 16501/93 Dismissed on 13.3.2007 WP 25023/2004 Panchakalyani rep. by her Attorney Agent Ajay Kumar Mohanty and Maheeja Requesting Planning Permission from CMDA Dismissed on 18.12.2008 WP 14166/2001 Ramu Naicker and 4 others Withdraw the acquisition under Section 48 Allowed on 13.6.2013 Writ Appeal (WASSR No.28288/2014) filed by TNHB and case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. by her Attorney Agent Ajay Kumar Mohanty and Maheeja Requesting Planning Permission from CMDA Dismissed on 18.12.2008 WP 14166/2001 Ramu Naicker and 4 others Withdraw the acquisition under Section 48 Allowed on 13.6.2013 Writ Appeal (WASSR No.28288/2014) filed by TNHB and case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The present status of petitioner land as follows: Survey No. Sub divided on Extent in Hectare Present status of land 14/2C 14/2C1 0.12.5 Building with Encroachment 14/2C2 0.03.0 Vacant with Building 14/2C3 0.03.0 Vacant with Building 14/3A 14/3A1 0.08.0 Shops with Building 14/3A7 0.03.0 Road Portion 14/3A8 0.12.5 Vacant 14/3A9 0.04.5 Road Portion 14/3A10 0.18.0 Building with Encroachment 14/5C 0.03.0 Shops with Building 9. The above said Report of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) unambiguously enumerates that the award was passed and the possession of the said lands were already taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. Further, it is clarified that the Government has not granted any exemption in respect of the lands now the writ petitioners claim. A mere letter cannot be construed as a valid exemption granted in favour of the writ petitioners. The exemptions, if any, are to be granted only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Government has to pass an order to that effect. However, no such order has been passed by the Government granting exemption from the land acquisition proceedings in favour of the writ petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners filed certain documents showing that the writ petitioners are possessing the lands in question. However, those factual details deserve no consideration in this writ petition in view of the fact that it is an admitted fact by the parties to the present lis that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated against the lands in question and now the Position Note submitted by the Special Tahsildar, clarifies that the land acquisition proceedings were concluded in all respects and the possession of the lands were also taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. However, the present writ petition itself is filed only on 27.3.2014, after a lapse of 12 years from the date of taking over the possession of the said lands by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. However, the present writ petition itself is filed only on 27.3.2014, after a lapse of 12 years from the date of taking over the possession of the said lands by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioners are to be construed as encroachers of the said lands and they have no right to remain in the said lands. 11. This apart, the learned Special Government Pleader emphatically contended that the writ petitioners are aliens to the lands and they have not produced even a single document to show that they are the owners of the said lands. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, have stated that the writ petitioners are encroachers and they are the land grabbers, attempting to take away the lands, which were already acquired by the Government and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus, the writ petitioners are encroachers and they have not established even a semblance of legal right or any other document, to show that they are holding a valid title in respect of the lands, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition. 12. This Court is of an opinion that when the acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.138, Housing Department, dated 14.5.1975 and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.962, Housing Department, dated 7.6.1978 and an award was passed and the amount of compensation was also deposited in the Civil Court, namely, the Sub Court, Poonamallee and the matter was referred to by Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. Pursuant to conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, possession was also taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. There is no reason to accept the pleadings set out in the present writ petition. Undoubtedly, the writ petitioners are to be treated as encroachers and they have no right to possess the said lands which were already acquired by the Government long back and the possession was also handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. There is no reason to accept the pleadings set out in the present writ petition. Undoubtedly, the writ petitioners are to be treated as encroachers and they have no right to possess the said lands which were already acquired by the Government long back and the possession was also handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16.4.2002. The writ petitioners are to be treated only as encroachers and when the respondents have shown the documents that the said lands were already acquired and the writ petitioners are unable to submit any valid documents to establish their title or otherwise, the writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition, seeking exemption of the said lands. 14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, relying on the Government letter dated 14.6.1989, says that the Government has granted exemption. However, the relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to issue an order of exemption in respect of the lands. The stand taken by the writ petitioners in the present writ petition is of self-contradictory and they are unclear about their title and the ownership of the properties concerned. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that the acquisition proceedings are admitted by the respective parties and the possession itself was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 2002 itself and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2014, after a lapse of many years from the completion of the acquisition proceedings by the Government and the said lands were already been handed over by the Government to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1975 and the writ petition is filed now after a lapse of 39 years and the acquisition proceedings were concluded. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioners are to be treated as land encroachers and they are liable to be evicted without any lapse of time. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/Housing Board filed typed set of papers, showing that the copy of the Award in Award No.5/86 was passed on 29.08.1986 itself. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1975 and the Award was passed in the year 1986. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/Housing Board filed typed set of papers, showing that the copy of the Award in Award No.5/86 was passed on 29.08.1986 itself. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1975 and the Award was passed in the year 1986. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed W.P.No.16051 of 1993, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The said order was enclosed in page No.33 of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the respondents, shows that M/s. Panchakalyani, M/s. Ramani, Mr. A.P. Chandra Sekaran, Mr. A.P. Muralisekar and Mr. A.P. Rajasekar are the writ petitioners. The learned counsel now appearing in the present writ petition, is the learned counsel appeared in that writ petition also. The land acquisition proceedings challenged by the very same petitioners were dismissed by this Court on 27.06.2003. Even thereafter, the very same writ petitioners filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1788 of 2002 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed final orders on 13.03.2007, dismissing the writ appeal. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings challenged by the writ petitioners were dismissed and the writ appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Not leaving the matter, the power of Attorney agents, namely, Mr.Ajay Kumar Mohanty and Mr.Maheeja filed another writ petition in W.P.No.25023 of 2004. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2008. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Courts on more than one occasion and the possession was also taken by the Government and handed over to the Housing Board. After a lapse of many years, another set of owners, namely, Mr.Rama Naicker, Mr.R.Ganesan, Mr.A.Elumalai, Mr.R.Munusamy, M/s.Savithiri were also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14166 of 2001 and a final order was passed on 13.06.2013, wherein the claim of those persons were allowed by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the third respondent states that those persons are the genuine owners and the present writ petitioners are no way connected with the lands in question. Thus, the present writ petition deserves no consideration at all. 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the present writ petitioners are not at all the genuine owners and there is a fraud committed by some other land grabbers. Thus, the present writ petition deserves no consideration at all. 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the present writ petitioners are not at all the genuine owners and there is a fraud committed by some other land grabbers. This apart, the letter dated 14.06.1989 relied on by the petitioners have no sanctity in view of the fact that the Government has never granted any exemption from land acquisition proceedings and the said letter in Paragraph 5 states that “the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District is requested to take action accordingly and to send necessary withdrawal Notification for the above lands for approval of the Government immediately. However, no such approval was granted for exempting the said lands from the land acquisition proceedings and therefore, the very submission that the land in question was exempted by the Government is incorrect and false”. 18. The learned counsel for the third respondent further contended that even there is a discrepancy in the name of the writ petitioners and the present writ petition itself has been filed in a fraudulent manner, so as to grab the land, which was already acquired by the Government and transferred in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 19. In counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petitioners are the owners of the land and the building plan approval submitted by the writ petitioners were also sanctioned by the competent authorities namely, the Panchayat Union and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioners are to be considered. 20. This Court is of an opinion that, on a perusal of the entire affidavit filed by the present writ petitioners, no factual details are furnished and there are suppressions in respect of the filing of the writ petitions in earlier circumstances and the orders passed by this Court. The writ petitioners have conveniently suppressed all the material facts in the present writ petition. The earlier writ petitions and the Writ appeal filed by the very same petitioners are suppressed and the details regarding the land acquisition proceedings were also not furnished in the affidavit. The writ petitioners have conveniently suppressed all the material facts in the present writ petition. The earlier writ petitions and the Writ appeal filed by the very same petitioners are suppressed and the details regarding the land acquisition proceedings were also not furnished in the affidavit. Contrarily, the writ petition is filed by stating that the Government had already granted an exemption in respect of the proceedings and therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled for the said land and the same is in possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioners. In view of the fact that the writ petitioners have suppressed all the material facts, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court time and again emphasised that a person, who is approaching the Court with unclean hands, deserves no consideration or relief from the hands of the Court. In the present case, it is not only suppression, it is the orders passed by the Courts, which all are suppressed. 21. This apart, the very letter cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner issued by the Government in letter dated 14.06.1989 is not an exemption order, which was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The exemption is to be granted in the manner prescribed under the statute and a Government letter issued is not an exemption order at all. The Government even in the said letter had stated that sent necessary withdrawal Notification for the above lands for the approval of the Government immediately. When such is the nature of the letter sent on behalf of the Secretary to Government, the same cannot be construed as an exemption order granted under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 22. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the property falls in a prime location within the Chennai City limit and large number of land grabbers are making an attempt to grab the land by way of an encroachment. Certain persons are already in encroachment and the Government is initiating steps to evict those encroachers, who all are in illegal occupation of the lands now stands in favour of the Housing Board for the implementation of certain schemes. 23. Certain persons are already in encroachment and the Government is initiating steps to evict those encroachers, who all are in illegal occupation of the lands now stands in favour of the Housing Board for the implementation of certain schemes. 23. Under these circumstances, the learned Government Advocate reiterated that the Government has not issued any such orders and therefore, the writ petitioners are treated as encroachers and they are not entitled to get the relief as such sought for in this writ petition. 24. This Court is of a strong opinion that the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1975 and the Award was passed in the year 1986 and the writ petitioners filed the writ petition, challenging the land acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed and the writ appeal filed by the very same writ petitioners including the original owners M/s. Panchakalyani, was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Such being the factum of this Court, all the persons, who are in possession and occupation of the said acquired land is to be treated as encroachers and appropriate proceedings are to be initiated against all those encroachers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 25. The Court has to necessarily made a finding that the respective officials, who are bound to protect the land, have committed an act of negligence and dereliction on duty. The land once acquired by the Government must be protected by all the officials, who all are responsible to protect the lands, which were already acquired for the purpose of implementing the Government schemes. However, the fact remains that the acquired lands are allowed to be encroached by some land grabbers by these officials and no action has been taken for number of years. Thus, the officials of the Government as well as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are absolutely responsible for their commissions and omissions in respect of protecting the Government lands, which were acquired for the purpose of implementation of the Government schemes. 26. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Housing Board, emphatically placed before this Court that the writ petitioners are aliens to the land described in the present writ petition. They have not even produced any document to show that they are the owners of the land. 26. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Housing Board, emphatically placed before this Court that the writ petitioners are aliens to the land described in the present writ petition. They have not even produced any document to show that they are the owners of the land. Contrarily, the writ petitioners are the land grabbers and interfered under the guise of some fraudulent documents. The learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board further states that these land grabbers are encroached the neighbouring land, for their own unlawful enrichment and therefore, a stringent action is to be taken against all such land grabbers. 27. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Housing Board that there are fraudulent documents, encroachments of the Government land, the same warrants comprehensive directions to be issued to the respondents in order to remove all such illegalities in respect of the Government land, which was acquired long back for the purpose of public at large. 28. As far as the present writ petitioners are concerned, they have admitted that the land was already acquired by the Government through the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1975. The letter of exemption issued by the respondents are not inconformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, no exemption was granted at all. In this regard, the respondents are bound to verify the sanctity of the said letter also in view of the fact that the letter itself states that the District Revenue Officer, Chengai-Anna District is requested to take action accordingly and to send necessary withdrawal notification for the above lands for approval of the Government. The writ petitioners have not established that subsequent approval was granted by the Government in respect of exemption. This apart, the writ petitioners had suppressed various material facts, including the earlier writ petitions filed by them before this Court. The writ petitioners have suppressed vital material facts and therefore, they have filed this writ petition with an ulterior motive to get an order from this Court by suppressing the facts. 29. This apart, the present writ petition itself has been filed after a lapse of long years from passing of the award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The earlier writ petition filed challenging the Land Acquisition Act, was dismissed and the writ appeal had also failed. 29. This apart, the present writ petition itself has been filed after a lapse of long years from passing of the award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The earlier writ petition filed challenging the Land Acquisition Act, was dismissed and the writ appeal had also failed. However, by suppressing these factors, the present writ petition has been filed. For all these reasons, the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as such, sought for by them. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:- (i) The first respondent is directed to conduct an elaborate enquiry into the entire incident and find out whether there is any illegality, negligence and dereliction of duty and corrupt activities in respect of protecting the public lands by the concerned Government Officials, who are bound to act in accordance with law. In the event of any such lapses, then the first respondent is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings and appropriate prosecutions against all the officials, who have committed such illegality, negligence or dereliction of duty in respect of the Government land. An enquiry in this regard is to be conducted, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter appropriate actions must follow, including filing of criminal case, if warranted. (ii) In respect of the encroachers of the Government land/TNHB land in question, the respondents are directed to follow the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and thereby issue appropriate notice to them and on receipt of explanations, all further actions are to be initiated to evict all those encroachers, who all are in unauthorised occupation and take possession of the Government land/TNHB land, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.