Madras High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs R.Saravanan .. 1St on 1 February, 2023
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.9816 and 6608 of 2019
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction),
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem. .. Appellant/4th Respondent
Vs.
1.R.Saravanan .. 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur.
4.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Office of Taluk Office,
Karur. .. Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1 to 3
____________
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
5.Sri Bala Subramaniyam Swamy Thirukovil,
Rep. by Mr.R.Sankaran,
Executive Officer,
Vennaimalai,
Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur- 639 006. .. 5th Respondent
[5th Respondent is impleaded vide
Court order dated 28.11.2022 made in
CMP(MD)1035/2023]
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
against the order, dated 9.10.2018, made in W.P(MD)No.12595 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Saravanan
Central Government Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.Prasanna Vinoth
for Mr.M.Palaniraja
for R1
: Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 to R4
: Mr.S.Madhavan
for R5
____________
Page 2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Mr.R.Saravanan, the pattadhar of the land in Survey No.249/4 at
Kadaparai Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District, to an extent of
0.32.0 Hectares, approached this Court by way of writ petition seeking
mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the land
acquired by the Railway Department for the purpose of laying railway line.
After considering the arguments placed by the respective counsels and
granting sufficient adjournments, taking note of the submissions made by
the Railway Department to the effect that the land of the writ petitioner used
by the Railway Department to dump huge chunk of granite stones and left
in the site for more than four years could not be removed for want of fund
and also the entire acquisition proceedings been dropped since the
petitioner's land is not required for them any longer and also made a
submission that liberty may be given to the petitioner to remove the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
boulders and granites at his own cost and sale the materials, this Court
passed the following order on 29.10.2018:
“...4.Thereafter, the matter was adjourned twice and
when it was taken up for hearing on 19.07.2018, this
Court has passed the following order:
“..2.According to the petitioner, he has no grievance
against the acquisition. All he needs, is the payment of
compensation. Initially, the Railway wanted the
acquiring body to acquire the lands of the petitioner
and after some time, the proceedings were sought to
be dropped in respect of petitioner's land alone. In the
meanwhile, large sunk of boulders were dumped in
the petitioner's place incapacitating him from using
the lands for any purpose.
3.The learned Counsel for the fourth
respondent/Railway, on instructions, submitted that
the Railway is willing to take over the land and the
third respondent can continue the acquisition
proceedings. In the event of award being passed by
the fourth respondent, the Railway is willing to
deposit the amount.
4.In view of this factual position, this Court directed
the first respondent to come out with the quantum of
compensation for disposing of this writ petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
5.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 seeks time for reporting the
quantum of compensation before this Court.
6.List the matter on 27.07.2018.”
5.After several adjournments, the learned
Government Advocate produced a copy of the
proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur,
in Na.Ka.A/180/2014 dated 31.07.2018, which was
addressed to him. It is nothing but the valuation of the
land and compensation, which amounts to Rs.
2,10,38,037/-, including solatium and interest. In that
said proceedings, it was mentioned that the subject
property is a temple property and in that regard, a
Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD)No.64 of 2018
is pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for
Railway sought for an 6 adjournment, in order to
produce the counter affidavit filed in the said writ
petition. In that backdrop, the matter was adjourned.
6. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the
fourth respondent / Railway, by way of typed set of
papers, has produced a copy of the counter affidavit
filed by the District Collector, Karur, in W.P.
(MD)No.64 of 2018, who is also the first respondent
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
herein, and submitted that the land in question is a
temple property. It is seen that the property in
question is Survey No.249/4 situated at Kadaparai
Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. On a
closure scrutiny of the counter affidavit in W.P.
(MD)No.64 of 2018, with regard to the subject
property, it has been averred as follows: “(*from
page no.44 of the typed set of papers filed by R4 /
inner page no.39 of the counter affidavit in
WP(MD)No.64/2018) ... iii)the lands that were
registered in the name of the temple as per the
settlement register, 1912, but, pattas issued as per
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 etc. (Andankovil East
Village Survey No – 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26,
Kathaparai Village Survey No – 182, 184, 192, 246,
249, 181, 250 and Authur Village Survey No – 566,
568). .... http://www.judis.nic.in 7 ... In respect of the
lands for which pattas have been issued as per Tamil
Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, the decisions made during
the final settlement enquiry under the said Act have
become final and appeal / revisions can be preferred
only as per the sections provided in the Act. The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
statutory orders passed by the settlement authorities
cannot be interfered with by the revenue authorities.”
2. After few more adjournments, the value of the land was fixed at
Rs.2,10,38,037/- (Rupees two crores ten lakhs thirty eight thousand and
thirty seven only) including solatium and interest. At that point of time, it
was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the
appellant the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Karur in a
connected W.P(MD)No.64/2018 wherein the land in question stated to be
owned by the temple. In the counter of the District Collector, Karur in the
other proceedings, namely, W.P(MD)No.64/2018, it was contended that the
subject land was registered in the name of the temple as per the Settlement
Register 1912, but patta been subsequently issued pursuant to the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Citing this passage, it was contended that this counter
filed by the District Collector, Karur, in the other writ petition has to be
taken note of.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
3. The above said submission of the Railway Department was not
acceded by this Court for the reason that the grant of patta in favour of
individuals never been challenged by the temple authority by following the
procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. In the absence of any revision or
appeal against the grant of patta, the counter affidavit in other matter cannot
stand in the way of directing to pay the compensation to the pattadhar,
namely, the writ petitioner.
4. It was further pleaded that without a formal acquisition
proceedings, compensation cannot be granted. That plea was also rejected
by this Court on 29.10.2018 with the following observation:
“9. Admittedly, the land was acquired by
the Railway long back and the same has been put
into use. After some time, the proceedings were
sought to be dropped in respect of the petitioner's
lands alone, however, leaving the large sunk of
boulders which were dumped in the lands
incapacitating him from using the lands for any
purpose. Thereafter, they undertook that they will
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
take over the land. Now the Railway has taken a
plea that formal land acquisition procedure has to
be taken. In the earlier occasion, the learned
Counsel for the Railway undertook that in the
event of award being passed by the Government,
the Railway is willing to deposit the amount and
subsequent thereto, based on the direction of this
Court, the learned Government Advocate has
produced a copy of the proceedings of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, in
Na.Ka.A/180/2014 dated 31.07.2018 (referred to
supra), whereby, the compensation was fixed as
Rs.2,10,38,037/-, including solatium and interest.
This compensation amount is not disputed by the
learned Counsel for the Railway and therefore,
they are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner.”
In fine, the writ petition was allowed directing the Railway Department to
pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of
eight weeks from the date of order. This order came to be passed on
29.10.2018 against which the Railway Department/4th respondent preferred
intra-court appeal which is under consideration today.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
5. It was again contended in the appeal that without formal
acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the fixation of
compensation of Rs.2,10,38,037/- without any jurisdiction is arbitrary and it
is also contended that the writ petitioner has an alternate remedy for seeking
damages for using his land and therefore forcing the Railway Department to
purchase the land paying compensation for the land without following due
process of law is unsustainable.
6. Meanwhile, pending writ appeal, Sri Bala Subramaniyam Swamy
Thirukovil sought impleading in this case claiming that the disputed land is
owned by the temple and appropriate proceedings been initiated to retrieve
the land pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
a Public Interest Litigation. This Court allowed the implead petition. After
due consideration of the merit canvassed by the Railway Department in this
appeal and the reason recorded by the Single Judge for directing the
Railway Department to pay compensation for the land, this Court found that
the land in dispute as on date stands in the name of the writ petitioner. The
patta been given to him and he has been in enjoyment all along till the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
Railway Department arbitrarily occupied the land and dumped the granite
stone while constructing the new railway line. Initially, the land owner was
made to believe that the land was required for Railway Department and they
have initiated acquisition proceedings. When they failed to pay
compensation, he approached the Court by filing a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.12595 of 2016 and in the said writ petition, it has been
canvassed by the Railway authority that they no more require the said land.
7. During the course of the proceedings, value of the land been
assessed. The Revenue Divisional Offier has made independent assessment
of the value of the property and certified that it values Rs.2,10,38,037/-.
Taking note of the location of the land in dispute and considering that the
land which has been dumped with granite stone and made unfit for any
purpose, this Court has directed the Railway Department to pay the
compensation as fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
8. No doubt there was no formal acquisition proceedings. It does not
mean that an arbitrary usurpation of the land owned by the writ petitioner by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
the State should be left without any redressal. Therefore, the Single Judge
has rightly directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to assess the value of
the land and pay compensation to the land owner.
9. As far as the claim of Sri Bala Subramaniyam Swamy Thirukovil
questioning the title of the writ petitioner, this Court, from the records finds
that on 01.11.2016, the then Commissioner of HR & CE Department has
directed the then Executive Officer of the temple to take necessary action to
cancel the patta issued to the individuals in respect of nearly 40.34 Acres of
land in the said village which includes 6.33 Acres in S.No.249. It is to be
noted that the land which is under consideration falls under S.No.249/4,
measuring 77 cents, it is pertinent to note that though the Commissioner has
directed the then Executive Officer to take necessary action to cancel the
patta issued to the individuals under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition
and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and retrieve the land, it is
unfortunate to note that till date officials of the HR&CE Department has not
taken any steps. It is also pertinent to note that even after getting impleaded
in this writ appeal, except request to stay off disbursing the compensation to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
the patta holder, no other steps been taken by the HR&CE Department to
establish their title over the property.
10. A stray averment made in a different writ petition by the District
Collector, who is also a party respondent in the current proceedings, the
unacted letter of Commissioner dated 04.11.2016 and an irrelevant
communication to the Executive Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer
dated 04.12.2022 is referred by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the temple, who have got impleaded in this writ appeal more than a year
ago. This Court is unable to understand why the temple, which claims that
the said property belongs to the temple, but not taken any action to cancel
the patta till date even after knowing that the land belongs to the temple as
early as November, 2016. As far as the present proceedings is concerned, it
is the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent herein been enjoying the
land after obtaining patta and agitating for the compensation and now when
the Railway Department has come forward to deposit the compensation
amount of Rs.2,56,28,052/- the learned counsel appearing for the temple
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
vehemently oppose without any material, the disbursement of the amount to
the first respondent.
11. Even today this Court was inclined to consider the request of the
temple and asked to provide any material regarding title to show that the
temple has taken appropriate proceedings. Unfortunately, the learned
counsel for the temple is not able to provide any material except the three
documents which we have referred above. Infact, it is also brought to our
notice that in respect of other survey numbers, which they claim title, suit
has been filed, however, the schedule of the suit property does not include
S.No.249/4 to an extent of 77 cents in the said circumstances, we are of the
view that the disbursement of the money to the first respondent, the land
owner, cannot be delayed any further in expectation of litigation.
12. Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant,
Railway Department produced a cheque for Rs.2,56,28,052/- drawn in
favour of the Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court. This Court directs the Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
of Madras High Court, in whose favour the Railway Department has drawn
cheque for Rs.2,56,28,052/-, to deposit and then encash the same and
handover to the first respondent Saravanan/land owner by way of Demand
Draft with an undertaking that this disbursement is subject to the outcome
of any dispute regarding title.
13. With the above direction, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J.,J.] & [S.M.,J.]
01.02.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PJL
To
1.The Additional Registrar General,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
2.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur.
4.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Office of Taluk Office,
Karur.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
PJL
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.9816 and 6608 of 2019
01.02.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
