Madras High Court
P.Dhanusu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 June, 2021
W.A.No.832 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.832 of 2020
C.M.P.No.10561 of 2020
P.Anandavalli (died)
Vetharethinam (died)
1.P.Dhanusu
2.Indrani
3.Kalaiselvi
4.Bhuvaneswari
5.Muthukumar
6.Padma .. Appellants
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Sirkazhi, Nagapattinam District. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.832 of 2020
(Cause title accepted vide order
dated 21.09.2020 made in C.M.P.
No.9816 of 2020 in W.A.SR.No.58334
of 2020)
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 09.03.2020 made in W.P.No.21253 of 2004.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants laying a
challenge to the order of the learned single Judge, who while repelling
the challenge made to the proceedings initiated for acquisition, has
held that both on merit and on delay and laches, the relief sought for
cannot be granted.
2.The acquisition proceedings were initiated way back in the year
1998 for providing house sites to the landless poor Adi Dravidars in the
locality. The first writ petitioner (since deceased) sent an objection on
02.06.1998, which was considered. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to
the District Collector on 31.08.1998, which was accorded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.832 of 2020
Government by passing Government Order. A proposal in Form II was
sent to the District Collector followed by publication in the official
gazette. This was put to challenge before the learned single Judge.
3.An award enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar
(ADW) on 09.03.1999. Though notice was received, the land owners
sent reply on 09.03.1999 stating that the land acquired is unfit for
house sites and therefore acquisition proceedings has to be dropped.
The Special Tahsildar (ADW) passed an award on 23.03.1999 fixing the
compensation. A final order under Form V was sent to the land
owners followed by notice dated 30.03.1999 asking them to receive
the compensation.
4.The first writ petitioner (since deceased) and the other
appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 1999 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Sirkazhi, challenging the acquisition proceedings. The
suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.02.2001. After dismissal
of the suit, a notice was once again sent on 08.10.2001 asking them
to receive the compensation followed by reminder dated 26.11.2001.
On their refusal, the amount was deposited in the Revenue Account
vide challan No.345 dated 18.01.2002. Thereafter, house site pattas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.832 of 2020
were issued to the eligible Adi Dravidars after following the due
process of law. Thereafter, the writ petition in W.P.No.21253 of 2004
has been filed. The learned single judge has held that the award
having passed in Award No.7 dated 22.03.1999, the writ petition as
filed is not maintainable challenging the acquisition proceedings in the
light of the judgment rendered by the two Division Benches and the
law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court.
Incidentally, it has been held that even the suits have been filed after
the acquisition proceedings reaching the stage of passing an award.
5.On merit, the learned single Judge held and that too, after
perusing the original records that the first writ petitioner (since
deceased) and her husband were aware of the acquisition proceedings.
Form III notice was returned with an endorsement that the husband of
the first writ petitioner will receive it only after consulting with an
advocate. The lands were divided into plots and 35 beneficiaries were
selected and pattas were also issued.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the procedure has not been followed even in the initial stage at
the time of calling for objections. The said contention cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.832 of 2020
countenanced for more than one reason. A reply was given, which was
also considered and the subsequent developments were known to the
husband of the first writ petitioner (since deceased) apart from her.
The facts as recorded and taken note of by the learned single judge
speak for themselves. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal
especially on the ground of delay and laches as the third party rights
have been set up.
7.With the above observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
22.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
raa/mmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Sirkazhi, Nagapattinam District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.832 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.832 of 2020
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
