Madras High Court
The Tahsildar vs M.Duraisamy (Died) on 29 October, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.A.(MD).No.876 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:29.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD).No.876 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.8910 and 7748 of 2019
1.The Tahsildar
Manamadurai Taluk,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai. ... Appellants
Vs.
M.Duraisamy (Died)
2.Bommiyammal
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.Kottaian
5.Balasubramaniam
6.Thirumalai Arumugam
7.Srinivasan ... Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 7 are brought on record as Lrs of the
deceased sole respondent vide Court order dated 16.10.2024
made in C.M.P.(MD).No.13305, 13306 and 13308 of 2024)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.876 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
praying this Court to set aside the order dated 16.04.2019, passed in W.P.
(MD).No.5183 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General-VI,
assisted by
Mr.M.Saragan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.R.Laxman (for R2 to R7)
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]
The Government have preferred this intra Court appeal under
Section 15 of the Letters patent Act, challenging the writ Court order
passed in W.P.(MD).No.5183 of 2019, dated 16.04.2019.
2.The original respondent namely, M.Duraisami, had filed the writ
petition before this Court in W.P.No.37730 of 2002, challenging the
acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1996 in Gazette No.78, dated
26.09.1996, so far as the petitioner's land is concerned situated in S.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2A, at Manamadurai Village to the extent of 4.72 acres. The said
Duraisami had taken the stand that he had not received the notice under
Section 4(2) of the Special Act and hence, he sought to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This Court quashed the 4(1)
notification so far as the petitioner's land is concerned with liberty to
pass fresh notification and passed the following order in Paragraph No.
6:-
6.In view of all the above, the writ petition is
allowed, the impugned notification under Section
4(1) of the Act in respect of 4.72 acres of the land
belonging to the petitioner alone is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the first respondent District
Collector, who shall furnish a copy of the report of
the second respondent to the petitioner, afford him
an opportunity to submit his further explanation,
hold appropriate enquiry by giving an opportunity to
the petitioner and then the District Collector shall
pass an order under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act and
then proceed further, if the land is still required for
any such Harijan Welfare Scheme. Consequnently,
connected miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Thereafter, the said Duraisami sent a representation, dated
20.11.2014 to the appellants to mutate the revenue records in his name.
The second respondent had issued the enquiry notice, dated 13.06.2016,
as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.37730 of 2002 directing him
to appear on 30.06.2016 at 3.00 p.m. Therefore, the said Duraisami had
filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.7715 of 2016 before this Court
seeking the following prayer.
Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to delete the entry of Adhi Dravidar Welfare
Department and to include the petitioner's name in
the revenue records of the property bearing Survey
No.2A (Part) Manamadurai Village, Sivagangai
District, measuring 4.12. acres in consideration of
the representation by the petitioner dated
20.11.2014.
4.This Court by order dated 21.04.2016 issued direction to
consider the petitioner's representation. Pending consideration, he also
filed W.P.(MD).No.11798 of 2016 with the following prayer:
Writ of direction in the nature of a writ
declaring the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2015 and the
consequent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.W1/18601/1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 13.06.2016 on the file of teh fourth respondent
as illegal.
5.In the said writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court passed
the following order:-
It is represented that the cause in this case is
also connected with the one raised in W.P.(MD).No.
24182 to 24188 of 2014 and W.P.(MD).No.21369 of
2015 and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.2883 of 2016 has directed the proceedings
to go on, but no final order will be passed and staus
quo as to possession of the land shall be maintained.
Hence,even in this case let us pass a similar
order.
The proceedings may go on, but no final order
will be passed and staus quo as to possession of the
land shall be maintained.
6.Thereafter, the said Duraisami filed W.P.No.5183 of 2019, with
the following prayer:-
Writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of
a writ directing the Respondents to delet the entry of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Adhi Dravidar Welfare Department and to include
the petitioner's name in the revenue records of the
property bearing S.No.2A (part) Manamadurai
Village, Sivagangai District measuring 4.72 acres
and issue patta in the name of the petitioner.
7.The writ Court, by impugned order dated 16.04.2019 passed the
following order:
2.The petition mentioned lands belong to the
writ petitioner. They were sought to be acquired
under Sectin 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. The
acquisition proceedings were challenged by the writ
petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.37730 of 2002. The said
writ petition was allowed on 13.08.2010. The
acquisition proceedings were quashed. The said
order has become final. However, in the revenue
records, the name of Adhi Drvidar Welfare
Department has been entered. This has cast a cloud
on the petitioner's title. The writ petitioner therefore,
wants to delete the name of Adhi Dravidar Welfare
Department adn include his name in the revenue
records.
3.I am of the view that this request of the
petitioner cannot be objected. This is because the
acquisition proceedings taken in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition mentioned lands were already quashed.
Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Challenging the same, this intra Court appeal was filed by the
Government. During pendency of this wri appeal, the said Duraisamy is
died and hence, his legal heirs are impleaded. On their behalf,
Thiru.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel has made detailed
submission.
8.Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General-VI,
assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, would
submit that the finding of the writ Court that quashing the acquisition
proceedings against the Duraisami in W.P.No.37730 of 2002 is not
correct. This Court directed to conduct fresh enquiry after serving the
notice and the same was pending. The said Duraisami also received the
notice. Thereafter, he filed the writ petition before the Division bench
challenging the Act itself. The Division Bench of this Court failed to
accept the case of the Duraisami and dismissed the same and directed to
proceed the enquiry. In the said circumstances, the order of the writ Court
to delete the name of the “Adhi Dravidar Department” entry in the
revenue record and incorporate the name of the Duraisami is not legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
correct.
9.Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Duraisamy's legal heirs would submit that after the order passed
on 13.08.2010 no further proceedings was initiated and no enquiry was
conducted under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act and hence, the petitioner
made a request to the appellant to change the mutation in his name and
this Court correctly allowed the writ petition and he had been in
possession of the property till his death. After his death, the legal heirs
are entitled to possession. In the said circumstances, there is no reason to
interfere with the order of the writ Court.
10.The Additional Advocate General made the additional
submission that his brother filed the writ petition before this Court in
respect of the same notification in the year 1998 in W.P.No.2754 of 1998
and the same was dismissed. In the said proceedings, the similar plea of
non service of the notice was taken and this Court after perusing the
record, had found that notice was properly served upon him. Apart from
that, the award was passed and the award amount was deposited as early
as on 15.01.1997 itself. Thereafter, the entry in the mutation was made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the land was transferred in the name of the Adhi Dravidar Welfare
Department. Hence, the writ petition's prayer to transfer of patta itself is
not maintainable.
11.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel further submitted
that once the 4(1) notification was set aside, the passing of award has no
legs to stand.
12.This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
13.It is undisputed that the State of Government brought the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act to acquire
land for the welfare of the Harijans. There is a slight deviation from the
Original Land Acquisation Act, 1894. As per the Act, a notification was
issued by the Government to acquire the land of 9.7 acres in
Manamadurai Village, Sivagangai District to provide house sites to the
Adi Dravidars. The said notification was issued under Section 4(2) of the
Act on 12.11.1995. The deceased/respondent Duraisamy and his brother
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ramachandran's land situated in S.No.2B also was included in the said
notification. Thereafter, the Government Gazattee was published on
26.09.1996 including the land of Duraisami in S.No.2A, at
Manamadurai. The brother of the Duraisami namely Ramachandran's son
had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2754 of 1998 and the same wsa
dismissed by this Court without accepting his contention that no notice
was served under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the mean time, the
appellants had deposited the award amount and also taken the
possession. In the said circumstances, the duraisami filed W.P.No.37730
of 2002 to quash the Gazatte notification dated 26.09.1996 and the
learned single judge of this Court had set aside the 4(1) notification
giving liberty to continue the proceeding after serving notice to
Duraisami and passed a suitable order. The said order was passed on
06.09.2010. Thereafter, on 20.11.2014, Duraisami sent representation to
the appellants to change the mutation. The appellants/department issued
the notice of enquiry as per the ordre of the writ Court on 13.06.2016.
Without participating in the said enquiry as per the direction of this Court
in W.P.No.37730 of 2002 Duriasamy filed another W.P.No.7715 of 2016
to delete the entry of adi dravidar welfare department and to incorporate
his name in the revenue record. This Court also passed usual direction to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consider his representation. In the mean time, he also filed writ Petition
in W.P.No.11798 of 2016 challenging the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 15, saying
it is repugant to the provision of the 107 and 108 of the Central new land
acquisation Act, 30 of 2013 and consequently, to declare the notice
issued by the appellant on 13.06.2016 as illegal. The Division Bench of
this Court did not incline to accept the case of the said Duraisami and
passed the order that the proceedings may go on, but no final order will
be passed and staus quo as to possession of the land shall be maintained.
Without disclosing the said fact, he filed another writ petition before this
Court W.P.(MD).NO.5183 of 2019 seeking the same prayer of to delete
the name of the Adi Dravider Welfare Department and to include his
name in S.No.2A, Manamadurai, measuring to the extent of 4.72 acres
and to issue the patta in his name. The Writ Court has held that the
proceedings under the Special Act, namely Tamil Nadu Harijans Act is
quashed and there is no impediment to incorporate the name of the said
Duraisamy. The said finding of the writ Court is not correct.
14.Thereafter, notice was issued on 13.06.2016 requiring him to
participate in the enquiry as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.
11798 of 2016. The same was challenged by the Duraisami in W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(MD).No.11798 of 2016 and the Division Bench of this Court passed the
order that the proceedings may go on, but no final order will be passed
and staus quo as to possession of the land shall be maintained. The same
was not considered by the writ Court in passing the present impugned
order dated 16.04.2019 to incorporate his name in the mutation record.
Apart from that, the compensation was deposited as early as in the year
1997 itself. Duraisamy had filed writ petition one after another without
disclosing the material fact before the Court and finally obtained the
order suppressing the order of the Division Bench of this Court and got
order in W.P.No.5183 of 2019 to change his name in the mutation record,
deleting the name of the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, which had
been made in the year 1997. The said acquisation is for the benefit of the
Adi Dravidar. Usually writ petition after the award and taking the
possession can not be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
repeatedly held that the writ petition challenging the 4(1) notifiction after
passing the award and taking the possession can not be entertained.
Duraisamy had filed W.P.No37730 of 2002 long after the date of issuance
of the notification dated 20.06.1996. This Court quashed the notification
but, directed to proceed further in accordance with law after serving the
notice. The Division Bench of this Court also passed the order to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continue the said proceedings. Pursuance of the notice issued on
13.06.2016 is continuation of the earlier acquisition proceedings. In the
said circumstance, the finding of the writ Court that the proceedings
already quashed, in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct
and also against the record. Further, the writ Court is also failed to
consider the specific circumstance of the appellant that the possession
had already been taken and the award amount has also been deposited in
the year 1997 itself. In the said circumstances, this Court inclines to
accept the writ appeal and sets aside the order passed by the Writ Court.
15.In view of the pendency of the enquiry from 2016 onwards, this
Court directs the appellants to complete the same within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with
law, otherwise principal secretary, home department state of tamil nadu is
hereby directed to take necessary action against the appellants and report
before this court on 22.12.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. with the above said directions, this writ appeal is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
List on 22.12.2024, “for reporting compliance”.
[P.V.J.,] & [K.K.R.K.J.,]
29.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vsg
To:
The Special Government Pleader,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN. J.,
and
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J.,
vsg
Dated :29.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
