Madras High Court
C.Nagarajan vs The District Collector on 25 January, 2021
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P. No. 15323 of 2000
C.Nagarajan .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector, Collectorate,
Tiruvellore.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue
Divisional Officer, Collectorate,
Tiruvellore.
3.Secretary, Chengleput,
M.G.R.Marketing Committee,
42-B,Vaidyar Street,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to relinquish the
land comprised in S.No.3 to an extent of 63 cents in Perumbakkam village,
Tiruvellore Taluk and District and restore the same to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : J.Antony Jesus
For Respondents 1-2 : Mr. Akil Akbar Ali
Special Government Pleader
3 : Mr. V.Ravi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
O RD E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent to relinquish the land comprised in S.No.3 to an extent
of 63 cents in Perumbakkam village, Tiruvellore Taluk and District and restore
the same to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are
as follows:
The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the property
situated at S.No.3 of Perumbakkam Village, Tiruvellore Taluk and District. It
is admitted that the land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of
establishment of marketing society of the third respondent and the proceeding
was completed by taking possession. It is also admitted that some third party
claimed right over the land and therefore, compensation was not disbursed to
the petitioner's father. Later at the instance of petitioner's father, the matter was
referred to Civil Court, regarding apportionment of compensation under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court by judgment dated
28.12.1994 in L.A.O.P. No.20 of 1983, declared that the father of the petitioner
and another person are entitled to compensation. It is stated that an appeal in
A.S. No.366 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner's father and it is pending
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
3. It is seen that the petitioner's father executed a Will dated 09.02.1972
for running a public school in the acquired land. The petitioner, based on the
Will executed by his father, requested the third respondent to relinquish the
land and hand it over back to the petitioner as the land was not put to use for
the purpose for which it was acquired. It is alleged by the petitioner that the
third respondent has made an attempt to exchange the land to make profit and
that the land should be relinquished in favour of the petitioner, the original land
owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the third respondent has
not utilised the land for the purpose for which it was acquired and that therefore
the land should be released from acquisition under Section 16(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act.
4. When the Government acquires the land for any public body, or
private organisation other than the Government, it may be open to the
Government to resume the land when the land is not put to use for the purpose
for which it was acquired and handed over to such department or organisation.
In the present case, the petitioner seeks relinquishment of the land acquired by
the Government for the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. The land
was acquired long back. After passing of award, the amount was also deposited.
Since there was some dispute regarding apportionment of compensation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act is pending. The petitioner
has not challenged the acquisition in the manner known to law. After this
length of this time, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to issue direction
to the respondents to relinquish the land. The petitioner has not even
approached the Government seeking re-conveyance of land under Section
48(B) of Land Acquisition Act. In the petition before the third respondent, the
petitioner has referred to an attempt made by the third respondent to alienate
the property in favour of an individual. In the said representation, the petitioner
condemns such attempt to alienate the property in favour of the strangers. The
petitioner has no right to seek re-conveyance from the Requisition Body merely
because the Requisition Body has not utilised the land for the purpose for
which it was acquired. May be, it is open to the Government to seek resumption
of land by initiating proceedings under Section 16(A) or Section 16(B) of land
acquisition Act. Section 16(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, does not enable the
petitioner to seek relinquishment by approaching the Requisition Department.
This Court is unable to find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly,
this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
25.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate,
Tiruvellore.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue
Divisional Officer, Collectorate,
Tiruvellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 15323 of 2000
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
bkn
W.P. No. 15323 of 2000
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
