Madras High Court

Ramesh vs The District Collector on 28 June, 2023

                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 28.06.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                       THE HON'BLE MR.R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                     and
                                  THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

                           W.P.(MD) Nos.22843 of 202, 1403 and 1404 of 2022
                 and WMP(MD) Nos.19330/2021, 22466, 1242, 1244, 1245/2022, 17786, 22485,
                          22548 / 2022, 19327/2021, 1243/2022 and 17931/2022

                 WP(MD) No.22843/2021

                 Ramesh                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                        -vs-

                 1.The District Collector
                   Virudhunagar District

                 2.The Tahsildar
                   Kariyapatti Taluk
                   Virudhunagar District

                 3.The Block Development Officer (VP)
                   O/o.Block Development Office
                   Kariyapatti
                   Virudhunagar District

                 4.The Panchayat Secretary
                   Arasakulam Panchayat
                   Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District
                 5.The Inspector of Police,

                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021


                    Aaviyur Police Station,
                    Virudhunagar District

                 6.G.Karalam

                 7.G.Muthukumar

                 8.G.Karmegam

                 9.G.Balakrishnan

                 10.S.Soliappan

                 11.S.Mummoorthi

                 12.R.Somu

                 13.A.Karalam

                 14.A.Karthi

                 15.Naga Chanderan

                 16.M.Rajendran

                 17.Velmurugan                                                 ... Respondents

(R6 to R17 were impleaded vide order dated 01.09.2022 in WMP (MD) No.14269/2022)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.B3/1641/2021 dated 11.12.2021 and quash the same.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

For Petitioners : Mr.Navaneetha Raja For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R3 and R5 Mr.J.Ashok for R4 Mr.F.X.Eugene for R6 to R14 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior counsel for R15 to R17

WP(MD) No.1403/2022

A.Karalam ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar 626002.

2.The Tahsildar Kariyapatti Taluk Kariyapatti 626 106 Virudhunagar District

3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) O/o.Block Development Office Kariyapatti 626 106 Virudhunagar District

4.The Secretary Arasakulam Panchayat Arasakulam Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

5.Naga Chanderan

6.M.Rajendran

7.Velmurugan ... Respondents

(R5 to R7 were impleaded vide order dated 01.09.2022 in WMP (MD) No.14267/2022)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove their unauthorised formation of road in the petitioner's agriculture patta lands, situated in Survey Nos.75/2A1C and 75/2A1E in Arasakulam Village, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District and consequently directing the respondents to award a monetary compensation of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the petitioner for the loss and damages caused to his patta lands and standing crops.

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior counsel for R5 to R7

WP(MD) No.1404/2022

S.Mumoorthi ... Petitioner

-vs-

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

1.The District Collector Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar 626002.

2.The Tahsildar Kariyapatti Taluk Kariyapatti 626 106 Virudhunagar District

3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) O/o.Block Development Office Kariyapatti 626 106 Virudhunagar District

4.The Secretary Arasakulam Panchayat Arasakulam Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District

5.Naga Chanderan

6.M.Rajendran

7.Velmurugan ... Respondents

(R5 to R7 were impleaded vide order dated 01.09.2022 in WMP (MD) No.14268/2022)

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

and consequently directing the respondents to award a monetary compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner for the loss and damages caused to his patta lands and standing crops.

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondent : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior counsel for R5 to R7

COMMON ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

The dispute in this case relates to laying of a road in the land belonging to

the petitioners in S.Nos.75/2A1C, 75/2A2, 75/2A1B2, 75/7, 75/2A1E and 76/1A

in Arasakulam village, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District. While it is

admitted by the revenue that the lands belong to the petitioners in these writ

petitions, it is claimed that a road was laid in order to provide access to the

villagers of Maniyapillai Village, since they did not have proper road and school

going children found it difficult to access the main road from the said village.

Earlier, by an order dated 01.09.2022, the Government was directed to acquire

these lands.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

2. The fact that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had filed a civil

suit in O.S.No.248/2011 and in the said suit, a decree came to be passed

restraining the District Collector and the Tahsildar from interfering with the

possession of the petitioners' forefathers is admitted. A Commissioner was

appointed in the said suit and he filed a report on 16.09.2015 stating that there is

no detailed pathway in the land in question and the land was in possession of the

petitioners' forefathers. No objections were filed to the said report. The learned

Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai decreed the suit vide his judgment and

decree dated 07.09.2017. Admittedly no appeal was filed against the judgment

and decree in the said suit till recently. An appeal came to be filed only in the year

2023, after the laying of the road in question.

3. Considering the above factors, the District Collector, Virudhunagar, was

required to be present in Court and file an affidavit as to at whose instance, the

road was laid. The District Collector, Virudhunagar, pursuant to our order, has

filed an affidavit on 17.06.2023 contending that the road was laid because of the

fact that the Division Bench of this Court had held that a detailed pathway

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

belongs to the Government. He would also rely on Revenue Standing Orders,

26(15). The Collector's affidavit proceeds on the assumption that there was a

detailed pathway in the land in question, but the Commissioner's report in

O.S.No.248/2011, which remains an un objected document till date, states that

there was no such detailed pathway in the suit lands and it is also claimed that the

road has been laid spending a huge sum of Rs.23,40,000/- and since it is the tax

payers money, it should not be disturbed. It is also claimed that in the Grama

Sabha meeting held during the year 2018, a demand was placed for laying a road

connecting Maniyapillai village with the Kurandi Road. The fact that the Grama

Sabha has passed a resolution by itself cannot justify the action of the respondents

in laying a road on a private patta land, that too, in violation of the decree granted

by a civil Court. Standing crops have been damaged would show that there is no

banafodes in the action of the respondents. Sadly the villagers of Maniyapillai

had offered a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss that has been caused to the

petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.1403 and 1404 of 2022 and this Court has been made

a party to such an illegal bargaining, by making that payment in this Court.

However, since the road has already been laid, we had required the District

Collector to disclose an affidavit as to whether the Government will be willing to

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

acquire the land and pay the compensation. The Collector has filed an affidavit

today (28.06.2023) stating that the Government is willing to acquire the lands

under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He has also assured this Court that

the entire exercise should be completed within a period of four months from

today.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners are unwilling to accept

such acquisition, since an order has been passed by this Court, even as early as on

01.09.2022, we accept the affidavit filed by the Collector with a fond hope that

the District Collector, who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service,

would abide by his undertaking that has been given to this Court today. The

clarification made that the acquisition will be without prejudice to the pending

appeal in the Sub Court, Aruppukottai, is not acceptable to us.

5. If the Government concedes the title of the petitioners, only then, it can

acquire the land. Therefore once acquisition proceedings are initiated, the appeal

will automatically become infructuous. We, therefore, direct the Government to

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

acquire the lands by paying the compensation under the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013. We make it clear that the solatium and additional amount

and interest payable under the said Act will have to be calculated from the date on

which the trespass was committed by the Government over the private patta lands

by laying a road. They cannot claim that the notice under Section 11 was issued

subsequently and therefore, additional amount will be paid only from that date.

The land acquisition proceedings shall be completed within a period of four

months from today. If the land acquisition is not completed within the period of

four months from today, the petitioners will be at liberty to remove the road and

the revenue authorities shall not interfere in such removal. The Superintendent of

Police, Virudhunagar District will provide adequate police protection to the

petitioners to remove the road in the event of the acquisition not being completed

within the said period of four months. The completion of acquisition would mean

the payment of the entire compensation.

6. It is also seen that the petitioner in W.P.No.22843/2021 was arrested and

lodged in prison for 15 days on a complaint made by the Panchayat Secretary,

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

Tmt.Anusuya Sundarraj, even during the pendency of these writ petitions in this

Court. She has filed an affidavit today and she is also present in Court. But the

lodging of an FIR by the Panchayat Secretary is clearly an action to threaten and

browbeat the petitioner to submission. Hence, the Government will pay the

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner in W.P.

(MD) No.22843/2021. It will be open to the Government to recover the said sum

of Rs.3,00,000/- from the concerned officers, who are responsible for laying the

road.

7. If the petitioners choose to challenge the land acquisition proceedings,

the time line fixed will not apply. It is brought to our notice by the learned

counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.1403 and 1404/2022 that the road

bisects the agricultural land. With a view to make it viable for cultivation, the

respondents are directed to provide culverts in three or four places along the road.

The petitioners will be entitled to claim severance compensation in the land

acquisition proceedings.

7. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021

consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.





                                                                 [R.S.M, J.] [L.V.G, J.]
                                                                        28.06.2023

                 NCC              : Yes / No
                 Index            : Yes / No

                 RR




                 ____________


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                W.P.(MD) No.22843 of 2021




                                                               R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
                                                                           and
                                                            L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.


                                                                                     RR

W.P.(MD)Nos.22843 of 2021 and 1403 and 1404 of 2022

28.06.2023

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis