Madras High Court
K.S.Prabhakaran vs The District Collector on 2 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2187 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2187 of 2024
1.K.S.Prabhakaran
2.S.Radhammal
3.S.Ganesh
4.Nagarathinam
5.Kalaiselvi
6.S.Thejas Surya .. Appellants
(Represented by their power of attorney
holder N.Vannamayil)
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Gudiyatham,
Vellore District. ..
Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.8.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2187 of 2024
W.P.No.10128 of 2010.
For the Appellants : Mr.D.Rajagopal
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated
26.8.2019 passed in W.P.No.10128 of 2010 dismissing the writ
petition, the unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed the present writ
appeal.
2. The appellants have filed the writ petition calling into
question the notification for acquisition dated 4.3.1997 issued by
the second respondent. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition as not maintainable, inter alia, holding that the possession
of the land was taken from the appellants and was distributed to the
beneficiaries and, subsequently, patta was also issued in favour of
the beneficiaries.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that physical possession of the
land in question has not been taken by the authorities and the
learned Single Judge failed to see that the authorities have not
followed the mandatory procedure while acquiring the property.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that
acquisition proceedings relating to the appellants' adjacent land
acquired for the same purpose, vide the same notification, has been
quashed by this Court on the ground of non-application of mind.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants added that the
possession said to have been taken by the authorities is only a
symbolic possession. Though the appellants have produced
materials to prove their case, the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the same and rejected the writ petition on flimsy
grounds. He thus prayed for setting aside the order of the learned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Single Judge.
6. Supporting the order of learned Single Judge, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that
after proper appreciation of the material records, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition and, therefore, no interference is
called for.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
8. It is the case of the appellants before the writ court that
they are the owners of the property in Survey No.79/2B measuring
an extent of 2.3 acres and the respondent authorities initiated
acquisition proceedings under Act 31 of 1978 in respect of the land
in Survey No.82/1 measuring an extent of 1.01 hectare for
providing house sites to Harijans. It is also the case of the
appellants that writ petition, being W.P.No.9923 of 1999, was filed
by the appellants to forbear the respondents from in any manner
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellants property
measuring an extent of 2.3 acres in Survey No.79/2B without due
process of law. The said writ petition, subsequently, came to be
withdrawn with liberty to approach the authorities under the Right
to Information Act. Thereafter, the appellants sent representations
under Right to Information Act requesting to furnish the Gazette
notification and after getting copy of the notification, they have filed
the writ petition.
9. Admittedly, notification for acquisition was issued in the
year 1997 and enquiry under the relevant Act was conducted by the
authorities and thereafter an award was passed on 27.03.1997.
Since the appellants have not turned up for the enquiry, the
compensation amount of Rs.1,34,429/- was ordered to be deposited
in Sub-Court, Vellore. After taking over possession of the acquired
land and after forming a layout, the authorities have issued pattas
to the beneficiaries on 20.12.1998. However, the appellants have
approached this Court only in the year 2010 challenging the
acquisition though they knew about the acquisition proceedings in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the year 1999. Thus, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge,
the writ petition suffers from delay and laches.
10. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, we
find that the learned Single held that after the approval of the
layout and issuance of pattas in favour of the beneficiaries, the writ
petition has been filed and, therefore, the same is not maintainable.
We are also of the view that once pattas are issued in favour of the
beneficiaries after acquisition, the same cannot be assailed by the
land owners, that too, after a gap of 13 long years. Hence, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Therefore,
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct
and no valid grounds have been made out to interfere with the
same. However, we make it clear that if the appellants still claim
that the acquired land is not utilised by the authorities, then they
are at liberty to approach the authorities concerned under the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.15468 of 2024 is closed.
(D.K.K., ACJ.) (K.B., J.)
02.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
bbr
To
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Gudiyatham,
Vellore District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
bbr
02.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
