Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Saraswathi on 27 September, 2021
W.A.No.692 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.692 of 2019
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Backward Class and Most Backward Class,
Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Collectorate, Coimbatore.
4.Backward Class,
Most Backward Class and
Minority Welfare Officer,
Coimbatore Collectorate.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Backward Class,
Most Backward Class and
Minority Welfare Officer, Coimbatore. ... Appellants
vs
R.Saraswathi ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page Nos.1 of 8
W.A.No.692 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.12.2014 passed in W.P. No.31844 of 2014 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]
This Writ Appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the
order dated 19.12.2014 passed in W.P. No.31844 of 2014.
2.Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants, heavily assailing the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, pleaded that when the husband of R.Saraswathi, the
respondent herein had already filed two writ petitions namely, W.P.
Nos.10310 of 1991 challenging Section 4(1) Notification in G.O. Ms.
No.251 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes dated 05.12.1990,
and W.P. No.12116 of 1994 questioning the correctness of the G.O. (3-D)
No.21 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare dated
16.03.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
16.03.1994, the same were dismissed by order dated 26.02.1999. Pursuant
to the dismissal of the above writ petitions, the children of the respondent
have filed two writ petitions namely, W.P. Nos.4840 of 2000 and 17568 of
2009 challenging the very same G.O. (3-D) No.21 Backward Classes and
Most Backward Classes Welfare dated 16.03.1994 published in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.03.1994 and the same were also
dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that the petitioner cannot
challenge the declaration made in the year 1994 after a period of 15 years
especially when his father had fought the battle unsuccessfully both
challenging Section 4(1) and 6 Declaration and also when he himself and
his brother have failed in their earlier endeavors and that there is no answer
with reference to res judicata which operates against the petitioner. Without
disclosing the above filing of the writ petitions one after another by his
husband and sons, the respondent herein filed the above W.P. No.31844 of
2014 seeking a direction to the appellants to re-convey the land situated in
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore North Taluk, No.12, Kalapatti Village
West, but, the learned Single Judge, allowing the above writ petition,
directed the appellants herein to re-convey the above land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants further
submitted that when the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act have not been challenged by the respondent herein and the same had
attained finality and that the award amount has also been deposited in the
Court of I Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore on 26.07.2013, re-conveyance
of the land cannot be made as per the Land Acquisition Act. These aspects
have been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
4.Heard Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the appellants. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
5.A perusal of the records would show that when four writ petitions,
namely, W.P. No.10310 of 1991 was filed by the husband of the respondent
challenging the Section 4(1) Notification in G.O. Ms. No.251 Backward
Classes and Most Backward Classes dated 05.12.1990, W.P. No.12116 of
1994 was also filed by the husband of the respondent questioning the
correctness of the G.O. (3-D) No.21 Backward Classes and Most Backward
Classes Welfare dated 16.03.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 16.03.1994 and W.P. Nos.4840 of 2000 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
17568 of 2009 were filed by sons of the respondent herein one after another
questioning the correctness of the very same G.O. (3-D) No.21, the same
were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 26.02.1999, 06.02.2009 and
30.08.2010. However, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the W.P.
No.4840 of 2000, has observed as under:
'4.It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners'
father K.C.Ramalingam had filed a writ petition being W.P.
No.10310 of 1991 challenging Section 4(1) Notification dated
05.12.1990 in respect of the very same land acquisition
proceedings. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by an
order dated 26.02.1999. Subsequently, the petitioners' father
filed another writ petition being W.P. No.12116 of 1994
challenging the very same impugned order (Section 6
declaration, dated 16.03.1994) before this Court. The said
writ petition also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution
by this Court on 26.02.1999.
5.It is not as if the petitioners' father was fighting the battle on
his own, unmindful of the interest in the land of the two
petitioners herein. Even under Section 6 draft declaration, the
petitioners' names are also found and they have their own
independent right. Having allowed the earlier challenge once
again the very same proceedings, that too, after a period of six
years. The petitioners are not only guilty of delay and laches
in coming to this Court, but the previous order passed by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
Court also will operate as res judicata in the petitioners'
putting forth the present claim.'
6.While so, after dismissal of the above four writ petitions, the
respondent herein has filed the above W.P. No.31844 of 2014 seeking a
direction to the appellants herein to re-convey the land situated in
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore North Taluk, No.12, Kalapatti Village
West. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated
by the respondent that the appellants had ultimately passed an Award dated
14.12.2012 and deposited a sum of Rs.15,97,724/- and her other family
members received the Award towards their share with protest and the share
towards her entitlement was deposited before the Civil Court and she had
not received the same till date. Surprisingly, the learned Single Judge,
without considering those aspects, had allowed the above writ petition filed
by the respondent with a direction to the appellants to re-convey the above
land.
7.Moreover, the subject lands had been acquired in the year 1994 and
pursuant to the Award passed on 14.12.2012, compensation amount had
been deposited by the appellants in the Court of I Additional Sub Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
Coimbatore on 26.07.2013. When the respondent has deliberately
concealed the dismissal of the above writ petitions, we are of the considered
view that the respondent has come to this Court with un-cleaned hands.
Therefore, this writ appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ
appeal stands allowed. No costs.
[T.R.,J] [T.V.T.S.,J]
27.09.2021
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.692 of 2019
T.RAJA,J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
vga
W.A.No.692 of 2019
27.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
