Madras High Court
S.Kothaiammal vs The Secretary To Government on 23 August, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10397 of 2023
S.Kothaiammal : Appellant/Writ Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The District Officer,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Kovilpatti Panchayat Union,
Thoothukudi District.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
6.The Village Panchayat President,
Pandavarmangalam Village Panchayat,
Thoothukudi District.
7.The Village Administrative Officer,
Pandavarmangalam Village,
Thoothukudi District. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 06.01.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.28800 of 2022 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 06.01.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.28800 of 2022. By the said
impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused the prayer of the petitioner
to quash the G.O.Ms.No.976, dated 07.03.1983, by which, the land of the
petitioner was acquired as invalid in law on the ground that it lapsed in view
of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rahabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of the land
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 07 cents in S.No.291/1B in
Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District. While
rejecting the above prayer, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the
petitioner to approach the authorities in respect of disbursal of the
compensation amount, if the same remained undisbursed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was the
original owner of the land totally measuring 2 acres and 31 cents in S.No.
291/1B of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk. He went missing from
13.08.2015 and thereafter, a civil death was declared. While so on 07.03.1983
land acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land of an extent of
1 acre and 07 cents and her husband filed W.P.No.1277 of 1983 and O.S.No.
404 of 1990 and thereafter A.S.No.96 of 1992, but however, no positive order
was obtained by him. According to the petitioner, though the proceedings have
lapsed, some antisocial elements who are the agents of the sixth and seventh
respondents are trying the grab the said land, they are also putting up temple
in the said land for which a police complaint was lodged. Therefore, praying to
declare that the land acquisition proceedings has lapsed as per Section 24(2)
of the Act, the writ petition is filed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
3. The learned Single Judge considered the case of the petitioner and
found that the entire issue has been closed since long back as the writ petition
filed by the petitioner's husband in W.P.No.1277 of 1983 was dismissed and
again the suit filed by him in O.S.No.404 of 1990 was also dismissed. The
learned Single Judge further considered the communication dated 13.08.2005
in which, it was indicated that the land owner refused to receive the award
amount. Therefore, the learned Single Judge declined the relief prayed for.
However, considering the grievance expressed by the petitioner, the learned
Single Judge directed the survey of the land and demarcate the extent of 1
acre and 07 cents, which is already acquired. If the compensation amount
remains undisbursed, the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to do
the needful. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has come an appeal
before this Court.
4. Heard Mr.S.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and Mr.J.Ashok, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. The petitioner claims relief under Section 24(2) of the Act. The entire
issue has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
India in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors.1. As per
the same, it is for the writ petitioner to prove that the neither possession was
taken nor the compensation was disbursed. In this case, a perusal of the
representation submitted by the petitioner reads as follows:
“Mjpjpuhtplh; eyj;Jiwahy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l
Nkw;fz;l vq;fspd; epykhdJ ve;jnthU
gad;ghLk; ,y;yhky; 40 Mz;Lfshf ,Ue;J tUfpwJ.
Mjpjpuhtplh; eyj;JiwAk; Nkw;gb epyj;ij
fz;Lnfhs;stpy;iy. cs;@h; gQ;rhaj;J mYtyh;fs; kw;Wk;
murpay; gpuKfh;fs; rpyhpd; cjtpAld; rpy r%f tpNuhjpfs;
Nkw;gb epyj;ij Mf;fpukpg;G nra;a vj;jdpj;J tUfpwhh;fs;.”
6. Thus, it is very clear that the possession has long since been taken.
Secondly, it is seen from the communication dated 13.08.2005 which is on
record that the petitioner's husband had refused to receive the compensation
and consequent upon such refusal, the same has been kept in a separate
deposit. Further, it can also be seen that the entire land acquisition
proceedings and its validity thereof has been concluded long back by the
dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.1277 of 1983 and the suit in O.S.No.
1 (2020) 8 SCC 129
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
404 of 1990. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief prayed for in this appeal as she does not satisfy the criteria as
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of Section 24(2)
of the Act. However in respect of carrying out a survey and disbursement of
the compensation if any, the learned Single Judge himself has granted relief to
the appellant.
7. In view thereof, finding no merits, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
23.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
3.The District Officer,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Kovilpatti Panchayat Union,
Thoothukudi District.
6.The Village Panchayat President,
Pandavarmangalam Village Panchayat,
Thoothukudi District.
7.The Village Administrative Officer,
Pandavarmangalam Village,
Thoothukudi District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A.(MD) No.1364 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10397 of 2023
23.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
