Madras High Court
M.Babjahan vs The District Collector on 20 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7423 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.7423 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6961 of 2023 & 459 of 2025
M.Babjahan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer and
Tahsildar,
Office of the Land Acquisition Officer
and Tahsildar,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluppur, Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
4.The Chairman of Panchayat Union,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Annavasal,
Pudukottai District.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.7423 of 2023
5.The Executive Officer,
Office of the Executive Officer,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Pudukottai Temples,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to hand over the
petitioner's ancestral land to the petitioner, which is situated in Survey
S.F.No.62/2 measuring an extent of 0.07.0 Hectares and Survey No. 62/4
measuring an extent of 0.03.0 hectares of land at Northamalai Village,
Kulathur Taluk, Pudhukottai District as per communication letter in
Na.Ka.1812/2019/A2 dated 04.10.2021 given by the third respondent
within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prakash
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate
for R.1 to R.4
Mr.G.Mathavan for R.5
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to direct the
respondents to handover the petitioner's ancestral land to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
comprised in S.F.No.62/2, measuring 0.07.0 Hectares and Survey No.
64/2 measuring 0.03.0 Hectares Northamalai Village, Kulathur Taluk,
Pudhukottai District.
2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4
and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
3.The petitioner's paternal uncle one Mohammed Ibrahim was the
owner of the subject lands. The second respondent initiated the land
acquisition proceedings at the behest of the fifth respondent for
construction of a marriage hall. The acquisition proceedings were
concluded and the registered land owner, Mohammed Ibrahim was paid
compensation as well. However, subsequently the said Mohammed
Ibrahim sent a representation seeking reconveyance under Section 48(B)
of the then subsisting Land Acquisition Act. He also approached this
Court in W.P(MD)No.10038 of 2009 to forbear the officials from
interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property. This
Court after hearing the petitioner's counsel as well as the Executive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
Officer, recorded that the petitioner was willing to take on lease a shop
by entering into a lease agreement with the third respondent. This Court
directed the third respondent to execute necessary lease agreement in
favour of the petitioner in respect of the shop constructed by the third
respondent opposite to Narthamalai Muthumariamman temple belonging
to Pudukkottai Devasthanam. However, going back on the said order and
consent before this Court, the said Mohammed Ibrahim preferred Review
Application(MD)No.47 of 2011. The said review petition came to be
dismissed on merits on 13.12.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner also filed Writ Appeal and after ascertaining from the learned
Government Pleader who was present in the Court, the Hon'ble Division
Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal with costs, finding that the petitioner
was projecting a false case, as if he never appeared before the learned
single Judge and consented to take on lease of one of the shops
belonging to the third respondent. Thereafter, the present petitioner /
nephew of the said Mohammed Ibrahim has been sending representations
to the authorities. The backbone of the case of the petitioner is that the
third respondent has recommended for reconveyance / allotment of
alternative site. On the strength of this recommendation, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
has given a representation to the authorities before approaching this
Court.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent
would submit that the petitioner has a habit of repeatedly issuing such
representations to all the authorities and when the marriage hall had
already been constructed and possession of the petitioner's uncle's
property was taken over long back and the compensation awarded was
also paid to the said Mohammed Ibrahim, the petitioner cannot be
entitled to any right and consequently issuance of Writ of Mandamus to
enforce such non-existing rights.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would
further submit that when the petitioner seeks for handing over the
property in the present writ petition, he has approached the District
Munsif Court, Keranur in O.S.No.11 of 2022 as if the petitioner is still in
possession and as sought for permanent injunction to restrain the officials
from deserving his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. He would further contend that there is absolutely no bona fides
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
on the part of the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel and the entitlement of the land owner, even assuming the
petitioner can be construed as a land owner or interested party, for
reconveyance has been settled by a series of judgments of this Court.
Reconveyance under the Land Acquisition Act, since repealed is not a
matter of right. It is entirely at the discretion of the authorities to
consider multitude of factors before deciding to reconvey the lands
acquired from the original owner. This has been elaborately dealt with
by this Court in W.P(MD)No.2660 of 2014 (Rajathi Vs The Secretary to
Government, Law (Legal Education) Department) by judgment dated
12.07.2021 and in the said decision, this Court has also held that even if
the authorities below had recommended for reconveyance, the land
owner was not entitled to reconveyance as a matter of course and it is for
the Government alone to take a decision for reconveyance. Moreover,
now, the Land Acquisition Act has also been repealed and in view of the
said position, the petitioner cannot be after the authorities seeking a right
which is not even vested with him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
7.In view of the above, I do not find any necessity to entertain the
Writ of Mandamus. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
8.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would bring to my notice that on his representation, the District Revenue
Officer has sent a communication in Na.Ka D2/4872/16 dated
17.02.2025 calling the petitioner for enquiry on 03.04.2025 at 03.30 p.m.
Though, the District Revenue Officer has called the petitioner for
enquiry, there is no useful purpose in issuing any positive direction,
since the District Revenue Officer is not competent to address the
grievance of the petitioner and already the original land owner
Mohammed Ibrahim has exhausted all his remedies before the authorities
as well as before this Court up to the Division Bench.
9.Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
To
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer and
Tahsildar,
Office of the Land Acquisition Officer
and Tahsildar,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluppur,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
4.The Chairman of Panchayat Union,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Annavasal,
Pudukottai District.
5.The Executive Officer,
Office of the Executive Officer,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Pudukottai Temples,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
MGA
Order made in
Dated:
20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:22:59 pm )
