Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Rajkumar on 7 October, 2021
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition),
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Coimbatore - 18 ... Appellants
vs
K.Rajkumar ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 01.03.2018 made in W.P.No.40629 of 2015 and allow this
writ appeal.
****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Raja
****
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15739 of 2011.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed for a declaration that the land
acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing notice under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 02.08.1991, which culminated in an
award on 22.03.1993, had lapsed.
3. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is stated that the
compensation was deposited under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 into Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
4. The dispute is now with respect to possession. The learned
Single Judge had found that in an identical case in W.P.No.32286 of 2014,
it was mentioned by the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Adi Dravidar Welfare in
the counter and status report filed by the respondents therein, that the
possession was taken as early as on 08.04.2009 and that the possession was
taken as a vacant plot. The learned Single Judge had also found that the
property has not been allotted to any beneficiary and is yet to be handed
over to the beneficiaries by the State. The learned Single Judge had
specifically pointed out that the land, pursuant to acquisition, should have
been taken in the manner known to law by filing a memorandum or
panchanama signed by the owner of the property with two independent
witnesses attesting the same.
5. As the said procedure has not been done in the case on hand
and coupled with the fact that the possession was not handed over to the
beneficiaries, the Writ Court refused to accept the document styled as a
delivery note. Therefore, the said writ petition was allowed and the
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.09.1992 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
said to have lapsed. Against the said order, the above Writ Appeal is filed
by the Government.
6. The learned Government Counsel for the appellants himself
has produced the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.51 of 2019, which was filed by the Government against the above
referred W.P.No.32286 of 2014, arising out of the same notification under
Section 4(1) and award and the same was dismissed, by order dated
11.01.2019. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:
“3. The only ground raised before us is that
possession was taken over by the Department in a
manner known to law. The proceedings, by which, the
possession was purported to have been taken, has been
filed at page 9 of the typed set of papers, which is titled
as 'possession certificate' and it contains the signature
and seal of the Revenue Inspector, Saravanampatti,
Coimbatore (North), who is stated to have been handing
over the land and the signature and the seal of the
Special Revenue Inspector, Adi Daravidar Welfare,
Coimbatore (South), who is stated to have taken over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
possession.
4. The same issue was canvassed before the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge called for
the original files, perused the documents purported to
have been the proof of taking over possession and
recorded a finding of fact that there was no significant
document to prove that the State had taken over
possession of the property. Furthermore, the learned
Single Judge also noted that no possession was handed
over the beneficiaries.
5. Before us, one more ground canvassed by the
learned Additional Government Pleader is that the
respondent/writ petitioner offered alternate lands.
6. This, by itself, will not establish that
possession has been taken over. In addition to that, the
decision taken in the earlier round of litigation cannot
affect the writ petitioner's right to claim relief under the
provisions of the Central Act 30 of 2013. Thus, we find
there are no grounds to interfere with the factual findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge, as it was done
after going through the files.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
7. In view of the above decision which pertains to the same
notification under Section 4(1) and award, this Writ Appeal is also liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
07.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition),
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Coimbatore - 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn
W.A. No.518 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2039 of 2021
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
