Madras High Court
G.Mariammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2022
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
1.G.Mariammal
2.Malliga
3.R.Kannagi
4.G.Annakili
5.B.Sundari
6.J.Rani
7.V.Gajagowri
8.G.Indirani
9.V.Mala
10.A.Jayanthi
11.S.Malar
12.M.Kanagavalli
13.M.Mangavaram
14.A.Umaiyal ... appellants
vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar And Social Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
___________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
2.The Director,
Adi Dravidar Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Officer,
Cuddalore
4.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare)
Cuddalore.
6.The Tahsildar (Revenue)
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
7.Jayanthi ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the order dated 23.02.2021 in WP No.21523 of 2019.
For the Appellants : Mr.Srinivasamurthy
for Mr.S.Saranraj
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukukmar,
State Government Pleader,
Assisted by Mr.Alagu Goutham,
Government Advocate,
for respondents 1 to 6
Mr.A.Maheshnath
for Mr.R.N.Amarnath,
for 7th respondent
___________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been filed by persons who were not party
to the litigation before learned Single Judge. They are, however,
permitted to raise all the issues before this court in this writ appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
learned Single Judge has given direction to the authorities to
handover possession of the land measuring 0.14.5 hectare to the
writ petitioner/6th respondent herein within a period of 16 weeks,
ignoring the rights of the writ appellants who were allotted the said
land by the official respondents themselves. The direction of learned
Single Judge is seriously affecting the rights of the appellants and
accordingly, prayer is made to cause interference in the order of
learned Single Judge.
3. To analyze the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants, we have gone through the records and find that the land
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
comprised in S.Nos.14/2A, 162/08 and 14/2B in Kizh Alinjipattu
Village was the subject-matter of acquisition, pursuant to the
notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for
Harijan Welfare Act, 1978. The acquisition was challenged by filing
writ petitions in WP Nos.4345 to 4347 of 2000. The Writ Court, vide
its order dated 27.02.2003, quashed the entire land acquisition
proceedings. During the pendency of the said proceedings, it was
informed that fresh acquisition proceedings have been initiated,
with the issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of the Act.
Subsequently, a compromise was entered into between the official
respondents and the writ petitioner/6th respondent herein. The
District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, vide his communication dated
19.07.2018 addressed to the Director, Adi Dravidar and Social
Welfare Department, informed that compensation would be given
for the rest of the land other than 0.14.5. Despite the compromise,
the land was not given to the writ petitioner/6th respondent herein
and therefore, writ petition in WP No.21523 of 2019 was filed in the
year 2019.
4. Learned Single Judge found that despite the compromise
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
agreement, the land measuring 0.14.5 has not been conveyed and
thereby, the Department has not given effect to the agreement
dated 19.07.2018. Learned Single Judge has further taken note of
the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents referring to the
proposal to re-convey the land measuring 0.14.5 hectare. Reference
was made to the sixteen encroachments made in the land in
question and the learned Judge observed that such encroachments
could have happened only because the officers responsible to
protect the possession and to re-convey the land in favour of the
writ petitioner/6th respondent failed to do so. We do not find any
error in the order aforesaid.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that allotment order has been issued in their favour and drew our
attention to page no.80 of the additional typed set of papers. The
said document was also perused. But we do not find it to be an
allotment order but it is only a scheme for financing the
construction of houses.
6. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal and,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
accordingly, the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
29.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
tar
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar And Social Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director,
Adi Dravidar Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Officer,
Cuddalore
4.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare)
Cuddalore.
6.The Tahsildar (Revenue)
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(tar)
W.A.No.1375 of 2022
29.06.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
