Madras High Court
K. Prem Raja vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2022
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :07.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.23993 of 2022
K. Prem Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Town and Country Planning,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
4. The Member Secretary, Puducherry Planning Authority,
Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry.
5. The Deputy Collector ( Revenue)
North-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
6. The Revenue Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
7. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Pondicherry.
8. Gowri ...Respondents
9.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned memorandum issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R)
N/LA/2019-2022/1606 dated 14.06.2022 and quash the same and pass
appropriate orders.
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Balavijayan
For Respondents 1 to 7 : Mr.Kumaran
Additional Government Pleader
(Puduchery)
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
ORDER
By consent of both the parties this writ petition is taken up for
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned memorandum
issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R) N/LA/2019-2022/1606
dated 14.06.2022 and quash the same
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner inherited the
property from his mother who has purchased the property from one
Krishnasamy Naidu. Thereafter, in the year 2008 the petitioner obtained all
necessary permission from the concerned authorities and constructed a
commercial building. Whileso the 8th respondent claims that he is the legal heir
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
of the said Krishnasamy Naidu and triggered up the issue without any sanctity
admitting that the Government having dropped the Land Acquisition
proceedings that was initiated against their father, alleges that the Government
had handed over the property to him and he has also made a complaint to the 4 th
respondent who intun has issued the impugned order. Aggrieved over the same
the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the land acquisition proceeding which is said to be pending since 1973 was set
aside by way of a Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.159/1982. Against which the
Government went on a Appeal vide S.A.No.1845 of 1982 and the said second
appeal attained its finality in the year 1996. But the Judgment and Decree in
the Second Appeal was against the dead person and hence the same remains to
be abated. Despite liberty was granted to the Government to rectify the defect
of abatement, the same was not done by the Government. He further submits
that the competent authorities have granted permission for the construction of
petitioner's building only after verifying the authenticity of the documents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
produced by the petitioner. When such being the case the impugned
memorandum issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. 8796/DC(R) N/LA/2019-
2022/1606 dated 14.06.2022 is not sustainable. Hence prays this Court to pass
appropriate orders.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 7 would submit that the impugned circular was issued to know
the detailed sketch showing the acquired portion and the encroached portion
with regard to the subject land.
6. On a perusal of the records it is seen that the land acquisition
proceedings were initiated in the year 1973 and the petitioner's mother has
purchased the property on 09.10.1982 and the petitioner claims right over the
property on the basis of the will dated 26.06.1992. Hence, it is made clear that
the petitioner's mother had purchased the property after the initiation of
acquisition proceedings. More so, an Application filed to review the order
passed in the said second appeal in C.M.P.No.1655 of 1998 in Rev.Appln
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
Sr.No.70891 of 96 in S.A.No.1845 of 1982 was also dismissed.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there there is no
merit in this petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
07.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
smn
To
1. Union of India, Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Town and Country Planning,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
4. The Member Secretary, Puducherry Planning Authority,
Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry.
5. The Deputy Collector ( Revenue)
North-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
6. The Revenue Officer,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
7. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Pondicherry.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
smn
W.P. No.23993 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23993 of 2022
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
