Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Rasu Padayachi on 29 October, 2021
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.4058 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.25436 of 2019
1. The District Collector,
Perambalur (Now Ariyalur),
Perambalur District.
(Now Ariyalur District),
Now Ariyalur District.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Ariyalur (Now Udayarpalayam) ... Appellants
vs
1. Rasu Padayachi
2. D.Kamaraj
3. D.Durai
4. D.Prabhu
5. D.Vimala
6. Gurunathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.06.2012 made in W.P. No.3671 of 2002 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.R.Singaravelan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muruganantham
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]
The District Collector and the Special Tahsildar have filed this
appeal, challenging the impugned order dated 12.06.2012 passed in W.P.
No.3671 of 2002, wherein the learned Single Judge allowing the above writ
petition, quashed the acquisition proceedings.
2.Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel representing for
Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents
submitted that since the land in question, having an extent of 4.32 acres,
belonging to the writ petitioners/respondents herein, situated at
Kuruvalapparkovil Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Perambalur District,
were being cultivated with the help of rain water, a notice dated 08.05.2000
was issued in Form 1 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978,
proposing to acquire the said lands for promotion of free house sites to
Adi Dravidars of Kuruvalapparkovil Village. However, as directed by the
appellants, the respondents appeared for enquiry and strongly objected the
land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the said lands were owned
by their family members and they are eking out their livelihood solely on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
the land in question and without which, they will not be able to survive in
future. Since the land acquisition proceedings were questioned before the
learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that when Section 4(3) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') enjoins the District Collector,
Ariyalur to consider the objections raised by the land owners, the same
were rejected by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ariyalur and
therefore, the mandatory requirement called for under Section 4(3) of the
Act has not been complied with and the same would vitiate the entire land
acquisition proceedings, the learned Single Judge, finding fault with the
non compliance of the mandatory requirement as called for under Section
4(3) of the Act and considering the fact that the lands were not acquired for
the genuine purpose to accommodate the houseless weaker section, residing
in the same village and that the lands were acquired for giving house sites
to the persons living outside the village, has observed that the land in
question, belonging to the writ petitioners, were acquired not only for the
purpose of issuing patta to the beneficiaries, belonging to the same family,
but, also to the beneficiaries living outside the village. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the land acquisition proceedings.
Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
Collector without any justification or any reason, hence the same is liable to
be dismissed, he pleaded.
3.Opposing the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge,
Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants argued before us that the contention made by the learned senior
counsel before the learned Single Judge that the mandatory requirements
contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act had not been complied with is
liable to be brushed aside, for, the District Collector, Perambalur, in his
Proceedings dated 12.07.2000, has already authorised the Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ariyalur to consider the objections of the land
owners and send a report to the said District Collector. Secondly, since
several Adi Dravidar families were living without any shelter, action was
taken under Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 by the Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar
Welfare, Ariyalur, to acquire patta dry land near to Adi Dravidar Colony in
Idaikattu Village. Resultantly, the lands covered in S.F.No.142/4 of
Kuruvalappar Kovil Village, belonging to Mr.Rasupadayachi, son of
Kuppusamy; Mr.Dakshinamoorthy, son of Poorasamy; and Mr.Gurunathan,
son of Kanagasabai, were selected and thereafter, 4(1) notification dated
20.10.2000 was issued intimating the acquisition of lands in question for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
providing house sites to Houseless poor Adi Dravidar and inviting
objections if any for the acquisition within 15 days. At the time of enquiry
under Section 3(1) of the Act, writ petitioners appeared and objected for the
acquisition of the lands in question, but, their objections were overruled by
the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ariyalur, citing a reason that
they are owning more than 5 acres of lands. Thereafter, an enquiry under
Section 5(1) of the Act was conducted on 08.03.2001 and in the said
enquiry, Mr.Rasupadayachi, Mr.Gurunathan and Mr.Kamaraj, appeared and
objected for the acquisition of the lands in question orally and they went
away. Finally, Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ariyalur, passed
an award dated 14.03.2001. Subsequently, a notice was sent to the above
said three persons (pattadars) by the Land Acquisition Officer to appear
before him on 02.07.2001 to receive the compensation amount, but, they
did not come to receive the compensation amount, hence, the compensation
amount of Rs.1,47,000/- was kept in Revenue Deposit. Thereafter, 73
houseless harijans have taken over the possession of the lands in question
and thereby patta was also issued to them on 23.01.2002. Therefore, learned
Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the
acquisition of the lands in question, he pleaded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
4.We are unable to find any merit on the submissions made by the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. The additional
typed set dated 20.03.2020 filed before us, no doubt, shows that by
Proceedings dated 12.07.2000, the District Collector, Perambalur, has
authorised the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare to proceed with the
objections raised by the land owners under Section 4(2) of the Act. But the
said authorisation dated 12.07.2000, permitting the Special Tahsildar, Adi
Dravidar Welfare to proceed with the matter, cannot be construed that the
mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 4(3) has been complied
with.
5.Firstly, when the District Collector, Perambalur, delegated his
power to the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, the second
respondent, for considering the objections and thereafter, sending the same
to him for perusal, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare has directly
sent it to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Perambalur.
6.Secondly, it could be seen that the objections raised by the land
owners calling upon the competent officer not to proceed with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
acquisition of the land in question, have not been considered as
contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act.
7.Thirdly, no doubt, the power to acquire the land has been vested
with the competent authority under the Act and the same has to be exercised
for a genuine purpose, namely, to provide house sites to the villagers, living
in the same village. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has rightly
found that the land in question, situated in Karuvalapparkovil Village, has
been acquired for the purpose of giving house site patta to the persons
living outside the said village. As a matter of fact, when the beneficiaries
are going to be brought from the neighbouring village, the beneficiaries
may not accept to live in the neighbouring village for various reasons,
namely, after living for few months or days, they may not like to continue
in the same village for different atmosphere with new strangers; they may
come for the sake of accepting the house site patta; but, later on, they may
not live with good rapport with the new villagers; the atmosphere may not
suit to their kith and relatives; and they may not be able to contact their old
friends and relatives easily. Therefore, the beneficiaries brought from other
villages may not live peacefully and permanently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
8.This apart, it is to be noted that initially, about 125 families hailing
from Idaikattu Adi Dravidar Colony, Hamlet of Kuruvalapparkovil Village
Udayarpalayam Taluk, Perambalur, District, applied for grant of house sites
to them citing a reason that about 250 families are living in a congested area
in Idaikattu AdiDravidar Colony and that there was no Government
poromboke land in the Village for providing house sites to them.
Subsequently, a notification was issued in District Gazette No.20, dated
20.10.2000, indicating the decision taken to acquire an extent of 1.74.5
hectares of patta dry land in S.F.No.142/4 for providing house sites to the
houseless poor Adi Dravidars. Whileso, surprisingly, pattas were also
issued to many of them when they were not the resident of the Village
where the lands were sought to be acquired.
9.Yet another reason dissuading us from interfering with the
impugned order is that more than one person in the same family have been
allotted with lands in question. Thirdly, certificate dated 14.01.2012 issued
by the Village Administrative Officer, Kuruvalapparkovil Village,
Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, and the pattas dated 15.04.2012,
30.01.2012, 12.01.2012, 04.06.2011, 05.07.2010, 25.05.2010 and
07.11.2009, issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Udayarpalayam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
in respect of the properties in Survey Nos.142/4 and 142/6 would show that
the writ petitioners are still in possession of the subject lands and
cultivating the same.
10.Thus, for all the reasons stated above, we do find any error or
illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In
fine, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.25436 of
2019 is closed. No Costs.
[T.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
29.10.2021
vga
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4058 of 2019
T.RAJA,J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
vga
W.A.No.4058 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.25436 of 2019
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
