W.P.No.23993 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :07.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.23993 of 2022
K. Prem Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Town and Country Planning,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
4. The Member Secretary, Puducherry Planning Authority,
Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry.
5. The Deputy Collector ( Revenue)
North-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
6. The Revenue Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
7. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Pondicherry.
8. Gowri ...Respondents
9.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned memorandum issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R)
N/LA/2019-2022/1606 dated 14.06.2022 and quash the same and pass
appropriate orders.
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Balavijayan
For Respondents 1 to 7 : Mr.Kumaran
Additional Government Pleader
(Puduchery)
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
ORDER
By consent of both the parties this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned memorandum issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R) N/LA/2019-2022/1606 dated 14.06.2022 and quash the same
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner inherited the property from his mother who has purchased the property from one Krishnasamy Naidu. Thereafter, in the year 2008 the petitioner obtained all necessary permission from the concerned authorities and constructed a commercial building. Whileso the 8th respondent claims that he is the legal heir Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23993 of 2022 of the said Krishnasamy Naidu and triggered up the issue without any sanctity admitting that the Government having dropped the Land Acquisition proceedings that was initiated against their father, alleges that the Government had handed over the property to him and he has also made a complaint to the 4 th respondent who intun has issued the impugned order. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land acquisition proceeding which is said to be pending since 1973 was set aside by way of a Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.159/1982. Against which the Government went on a Appeal vide S.A.No.1845 of 1982 and the said second appeal attained its finality in the year 1996. But the Judgment and Decree in the Second Appeal was against the dead person and hence the same remains to be abated. Despite liberty was granted to the Government to rectify the defect of abatement, the same was not done by the Government. He further submits that the competent authorities have granted permission for the construction of petitioner's building only after verifying the authenticity of the documents Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23993 of 2022 produced by the petitioner. When such being the case the impugned memorandum issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R) N/LA/2019-
2022/1606 dated 14.06.2022 is not sustainable. Hence prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 would submit that the impugned circular was issued to know the detailed sketch showing the acquired portion and the encroached portion with regard to the subject land.
6. On a perusal of the records it is seen that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1973 and the petitioner's mother has purchased the property on 09.10.1982 and the petitioner claims right over the property on the basis of the will dated 26.06.1992. Hence, it is made clear that the petitioner's mother had purchased the property after the initiation of acquisition proceedings. More so, an Application filed to review the order passed in the said second appeal in C.M.P.No.1655 of 1998 in Rev.Appln Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23993 of 2022 Sr.No.70891 of 96 in S.A.No.1845 of 1982 was also dismissed.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
07.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
smn
To
1. Union of India, Represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The Secretary to Government, Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
4. The Member Secretary, Puducherry Planning Authority, Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry.
5. The Deputy Collector ( Revenue) North-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
6. The Revenue Officer, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
Page 6 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23993 of 2022
7. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pondicherry.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
smn W.P. No.23993 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23993 of 2022 07.09.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis