Madras High Court
A.Dhanendran vs The District Collector on 29 December, 2021
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD).No.23235 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.19657 of 2021
A.Dhanendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluppur,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Tahsildhar,
Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Ponnamaravathi,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Deputy Director for Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District. ...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.E4/25938/2021 dated 15.12.2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Pragalad Ravi
For Mr.S.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr.B.Pragalad Ravi, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner
and Mr.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari,
questioning the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.
Na.Ka.No.E4/25938/2021, dated 15.12.2021 and to interfere with it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
3. The petitioner claims that he is a resident of the property in S.No.
701/3 measuring about 0.22.0 ares, which is approximately 54 cents situated
at Ponnamaravathi West Village, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
The property originally belonged to one Palaniyaye, wife of Periyaiya Thevar.
It is agricultural Punja land. It was assigned to her by the Tahsildar of
Thirumayam Taluk in the year 1969 by his proceedings, dated 01.04.1969.
Thereafter, she alienated the land in favour of the mother of the petitioner for
valid consideration on 28.04.1972 by a registered sale deed in Document No.
812 of 1972.
4. Such an alienation is invalid. The assignee can convey the property
only after a period of ten years from the date of assignment. In this particular
case, the assignee has alienated the said land within a period of three years.
Questioning that particular fact, the assignment itself had been interfered with
by the respondents. That order travelled up to the Commissioner of Land
Administration and I am informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the matter had been remanded back for further consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
5. It is now stated that the impugned order has been passed on
15.12.2021 stating that the said land is required for putting up 'Uzhavar
Santhai' by the fourth respondent herein. It is commonly known that putting
up a land for 'Uzhavar Santhai' is for public purpose. Article 300 of the
Constitution has to be examined keeping in mind the larger right of the
public.
6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this
Court to a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.196 of
2011, D.B.Basnett (D) Through Legal Heirs Vs. The Collector, East
District, Gangtok, Sikkim, dated 02.03.2020. The learned counsel for the
petitioner drew notice to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
no person should be dispossessed except by due process of law. It had also
been stated that having regard to the provisions under Article 300A, the State
can exercise its power of eminent domain and interfere with the right of
property of a person by acquiring the same, but the same must be for public
purpose and reasonable compensation must be paid. This was the position as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
held in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Darius Shapur
Chennai (2005) 7 SCC 627.
7. The position of law is very clear. The State can therefore, interfere
with the right of property of any individual and acquire the same. They must
however due procedure. If they are to acquire the private property, then
necessary compensation should be given.
8.The cloud of the petitioner's possession and title will have to be
removed and it is now pending before the concerned authority. The
assignment in favour of the vendor of the mother of the petitioner had been
questioned and it is under challenge by the respondents. The petitioner,
therefore cannot claim to be in possession with lawful right. Here the right is
subject to the decision to be taken by the concerned authorities. In this case,
the respondents seek to put the land for public purpose, namely, putting up a
'Uzhavar Santhai'. The impugned order, dated 15.12.2021 has been passed by
the District Collector, Pudukkottai. After examining the entire aspects, it had
been stated that the land is acquired for putting up 'Uzhavar Santhai'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the said order
stating that since the issue of assignment is still pending before the concerned
authorities, 'Uzhavar Santhai' cannot be put up. I am not able to accept that
particular line of argument. The land is not classified in the revenue records
in the individual name of the petitioner. It is classified as 'Punjai Tharisu'.
Once that is the classification of the land, as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner itself,
the Government is the eminent domain with respect to the lands coming under
its control and can interfere with the right to that property of a person.
10. Here the right of the petitioner itself is under cloud. Mere execution
of sale deed in favour of the mother of the petitioner will not grant any
specific right over the land, which has classified as 'Arasu Punja Tharisu'.
Dealing with such land is only at risk of both the vendor and purchaser. The
petitioner's mother having purchased such land will necessarily has to face the
necessary consequences. The Government by exercising its power of eminent
domain, seek to take back the land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
11.In view of these reasons, I am not prepared to interfere with the
order impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
29.12.2021
(2/2)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PJL/SN
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluppur,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.23235 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
PJL/SN
3.The Thasildar,
Ponnamarvathi Taluk,
Ponnamarvathi,
Pudukkottai District.
4.The Deputy Director for Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
W.P(MD).No.23235 of 2021
29.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
