Madras High Court
Thimmakka vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2023
2023:MHC:3848
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.7022 of 2023
1.Thimmakka
2.Narayanappa
3.Seenappa ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
District Collector Office,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Krishnagiri.
3.A.Sivanna
4.Neelamma
5.Kavitha
6.Krishnappa ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
[R6 is impleaded as per order dated 09.08.2023 made
in WMP.No.22133 of 2023 in WP.No.6919 of 2023]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the
1st respondent's Notification dated 31.12.1998, under Section 4(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act
31 of 1978), in respect of our land measuring Hectares 0-94.5 Ares (2 Acres
and 33 Cents) comprised in Survey No.72 of Komaranapalli Village,
Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, and the consequential Award
No.13/98-99, Na.Ka.986/98 dated 19.03.1999 passed by the Second
Respondent herein, from the file of the respondents nos.1 and 2 herein to
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar
For Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar
For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 to R5 : Not Ready in Notice
For R6 : Mr.T.Elumalai
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the notification dated
31.12.1998, under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for
Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978), in respect of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
measuring Hectares 0-94.5 Ares (2 Acres and 33 Cents) comprised in Survey
No.72 of Komaranapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District
and the consequential Award No.13/98-99, Na.Ka.986/98 dated 19.03.1999
passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioners state that they are the owners of the subject property,
which was acquired. There is a title dispute between two parties and the
matter went up to Second Appeal, which was disposed of by the High Court.
The fact remains that the 4(1) Notification was issued on 31.12.1998 and
after following the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, an award was
passed on 19.03.1999.
3. Once an award is passed, the land vests with the Government and
thereafter, if any dispute regarding title exists between the parties, the same is
to be resolved only for the purpose of disbursing the amount of compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the notification of the
year 1998 cannot be now challenged in the present writ petition after a lapse
of about 25 years. Admittedly, an award has been passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleading
respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ramalingam and Others vs. The State of Tamil,
represented by the Secretary to Industries Department reported in 2005
(3) CTC 1, wherein, this Court held as follows:
“3. In these appeals, the facts are that the
Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act was given on 07.11.1996 whereas the writ
petitions were filed on 28.11.1996, i.e. after the
award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by
the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be
entertained after the award under the Land
Acquisition Act has been passed – vide Tej Kaur
and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (4)
SCC 485; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v.
Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671; Executive
Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division,
Uttar Pradesh v. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9)
SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan and
others, 1996 (1) SCC 250. Following the aforesaid
decision, we are of the opinion that the writ
petition itself were not maintainable and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
should have been dismissed on this ground itself.
Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. Connected
WAMP Nos.1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed.”
5. In respect of the dispute between the parties, it is to be confined with
reference to the compensation disbursed and the validity of the notification
cannot be now challenged after passing of the award.
6. Earlier one Mr.S.Nanjappa from whom the writ petitioners claim
rights, filed W.P.No.5928 of 1999, which was dismissed on 21.10.2008 and
W.A.No.1380 of 2014 was filed. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
passed final orders on 28.02.2018 as follows:-
“6. The information furnished by the
Registry indicates that the L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1999,
has already been disposed of by the reference
Court by award dated 16 August 2016. There is no
question of directing the reference Court at this
point of time to adjudicate the issue raised by the
appellant on the strength of the decree in
S.A.No.154 of 1994. It is always open to the
appellants to challenge the award passed by the
reference Court in case they are still aggrieved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
The issue raised by the appellants cannot be
decided in the proceedings arising out of the order
passed in W.P.No.5928 of 1999. We are therefore
of the view that the appellant must move the
appellate Court against the award passed in
L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1999. We grant liberty to the
appellant to move the appellate Court against the
award in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1999. In case any such
appeal is filed, the Appellate Court shall take note
of the initiation of the writ petition in W.P.No.5928
of 1999 and the present appeal.”
7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission
that the said Mr.Nanjappa is no way connected with the present writ
petitioners. But on seeing the judgment delivered in S.A.No.154 of 1994
dated 14.07.1997, the said Mr.Nanjappa is the 3rd respondent in the Second
Appeal and the 2nd respondent deceased Mr.Muniyappa was also party to the
Second Appeal. The present writ petitioners are the legal heirs of the 2nd
respondent Mr.Muniyappa in the Second Appeal.
8. This being the factum, 4(1) Notification issued under the Land
Acquisition Act on 31.10.1998 cannot be now challenged nor any relief can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
be granted after a lapse of 25 years from the date of acquisition. An Award
was passed and the acquisition proceedings were completed in all respects
long back and by raising certain grounds, the petitioners cannot attempt to
reopen the entire acquisition proceedings, which is improper.
9. It is needless to state that once the acquisition proceedings are
completed, the lands absolutely vest with the Government and thereafter the
Government is empowered to deal with the properties in the manner known
to law.
10. With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
09.08.2023
(2/2)
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
District Collector Office,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.6919 of 2023
09.08.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
