Neyveli Lignite CorporationNilam Veedu KoduthaKuzhampu PaniyalargalNala Sangam rep. By its Secretary v. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE:02-4-2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.17551 of 1998Neyveli Lignite CorporationNilam Veedu KoduthaKuzhampu PaniyalargalNala Sangam rep. By its Secretary... Petitionervs.1. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation, rep. By its Chairman Neyveli, Cuddalore District.2. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition (LA) Neyveli 1... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus as statedtherein.For petitioner : Mr.V.RaghavachariFor respondents : Mr.N.A.K.Sharma for R.1 Mrs.D.Geetha,AGP for R.2..ORDERThis writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents fromtaking possession of the lands of the members of the petitionerSangam without complying with arrangement dated 13.10.1997.2. The writ petitioner Sangam was started to protect therights of the persons who had handed over the lands to the NeyveliLignite Corporation (in short, "NLC"), so as to enable it todevelop its second stage of excavation. According to thepetitioner Sangam, its members were called upon to receive thesums awarded for their lands acquired and to vacate and hand overthe sites for the excavation. The case of the petitioner Sangam isthat an understanding was reached between its members and therespondents, by which the first respondent has agreed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) that the Villagers will form a society for the purpose ofapplying for tenders so as to give employment to the farmers whohad given up their lands;(ii) that the persons will be given employment initially astemporary workers and thereafter they will be absorbedpermanently on seniority basis;(iii) that alternate sites would be provided to the land owners;and(iv) that land owners would then voluntarily hand over the landsto the NLC.2(a). It is the further case of the petitioner Sangam that in1957, the village occupied by its members was acquired for Phase-Iof the first respondent's project and the occupants were neithergranted alternate sites, nor they were given employment. It wasin those circumstances, the above said arrangement was enteredwhen the acquisition for the second phase was initiated. In spiteof the arrangement entered, even after one year from the date ofpromise, the members of the petitioner Sangam have not beengranted any of the opportunities as per the arrangement, and inspite of the fact that the members of the petitioner Sangam areready and willing to hand over the lands, the arrangement is notbeing fulfilled. 2(b). It is also the case of the petitioner Sangam that inthe light of its members giving up their rights to enhancedcompensation, the benefits by way of employment and alternatesites were agreed. However, the respondents have issued notice tothem to vacate and hand over possession within 7 days from10.10.1998. Since the respondents are not interested in fulfillingthe arrangement, the petitioner's Sangam has filed the presentwrit petition for direction as stated above.3. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. Thefirst respondent has raised a question regarding maintainabilityof the writ petition and according to the first respondent, thereis no arrangement in respect of Survey Nos.87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 96and 97 of Pudu Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk. The landswere acquired by the first respondent Corporation under the LandAcquisition Act and possession has been taken over at varioustimes in 1994 and the Corporation is in possession of the saidlands utilised the same for mining and other purposes. Thepetitioner Sangam itself has no locus standi to file the writpetition and the Corporation understands that the registration ofpetitioner Sangam itself was suspended. It is also stated thatthe land acquisition proceedings have been completed by followingthe procedure and the compensation as per the Act has beendisbursed in the normal course to all the occupants, including themembers of the petitioner Sangam. While stating that theCorporation is always for rehabilitation of persons ousted, thereis no written or oral arrangement as claimed in the writ petitionin respect of Pudu Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk or withrespect to any other village. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3(a). The arrangement as stated in the writ petition isdenied. It is also specifically stated that out of 129individuals listed in the list annexed to the petitioner's typedset of papers, based on the eligibility and satisfaction ofstipulated conditions, alternate sites have been provided to fiftyindividuals. As far as the eligibility to alternate house sitesis concerned, the persons who have surrendered houses in whichthey were living are eligible and it is also subject to theproduction of proof of having resided in the acquired houses fornot less than five years prior to the date of notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. 3(b). It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavitthat one Kuppusamy, father of the deponent of the writ petition,viz., V.K.Ravi, himself being an awardee, sought for increasedcompensation in LAOP.No.52 of 2001, which finally came to besettled through Lok Adalat on 13.08.2004, whereby the saidKuppusamy was paid an additional sum of Rs.1,24,205/-. Likewise,the other awardees also availed themselves the benefit ofstatutory provisions by seeking increased compensation. It isalso stated that as regards post 1989 Awards passed under the LandAcquisition Act, a fresh rehabilitation plan has been finalisedand approved by the Tamil Nadu Government. It is also stated thatthe deponent of the affidavit V.K.Ravi, himself had applied forand was granted licence to run a side shop receiving preferentialtreatment as a land oustee.4. The writ petitioner Sangam, which has chosen to file thisaffidavit has given the list of members consisting of 129. Eventhough the petitioner Sangam has chosen to file the writ petitionon the basis of an arrangement stated to have been entered, thereare absolutely no particulars about the date of such arrangementand the persons who have signed and the sanctity of thearrangement entered. However, during the course of argument, aXerox copy of the proceedings taken in the Conciliation Meeting(rkhjhdf; Tl;lk;) stated to have taken place on 13.10.1997, signedby nearly three persons on behalf of the persons given the landsand two persons on behalf of NLC in the presence of the DistrictWelfare Officer, was filed.5. It is not in dispute that in respect of the lands whichare stated to be in possession of 129 persons annexed in the typedset of papers filed by the writ petitioner Sangam have beenacquired much earlier under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and thecompensation have been received by them. However, the case of thepetitioner Sangam is that its members are in possession, and basedon the above said arrangement the first respondent has agreed toprovide for alternate sites or employment and so on. Merelybecause the said arrangement contains a Clause that till alternatesites are given or employment is provided to the awardees, theyare entitled to retain possession of the property. In the counteraffidavit it is specifically stated that in respect of some ofsurvey numbers, viz., S.Nos.87,88,89,91,93,96 and 97 of Pudu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk, the respondents havetaken possession of the same and in fact mining operation is goingon.6. In any event, when acquisition proceedings are completedand compensation has been paid and in some of the cases it isstated that the occupants have even approached the Court by filingLAOPs., for enhanced compensation and the father of the deponentof the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has alsoreceived such enhanced compensation, it does not mean that theoccupants should remain in possession even after the acquisitionproceedings are over. If the members of the petitioner Sangam areentitled for any such benefit as per the arrangement stated above,it is open to them to approach the appropriate authority or forumfor the purpose of enforcing their right, and that does notempower the owners to continue to be in possession, when theirproperties have already been acquired under due process of law andnecessary compensation has been paid. 7. It is well settled that the existence of right ofindividual party is a foundation for him to approach the Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in Stateof Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev and other (AIR 1964 SC 685). It isalso held that only affected persons have right to approach theCourt in cases where the individual rights are involved in VinoyKumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2001 SC 1739). In TamilagaAsiriyar Kootani rep. By the General Secretary V.Annamali vs. TheGovernment of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, School Educationand others (2005 (3) MLJ 252), a Division Bench of this Court hasalso held that the Association has no locus standi to file such awrit petition. In the present case even assuming otherwise thatthe members of the petitioner Sangam are entitled to any benefits,the Sangam has no locus standi to file the writ petition at all.Further, the affidavit does not contain any particulars and eventhe date of arrangement is not mentioned except a Xerox copy ofthe proceedings which has been produced before this Court at thetime of argument, the enforceability of which has to be decidednot under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.8. It is clear from the counter affidavit that the respondentCorporation is having a rehabilitation scheme, under which it is,in fact, providing alternate sites or employment. It is also madeclear that out of 129 members stated in the annexure filed alongwith the writ petition, 50 persons have been given alternate sitesand the respondents have also stipulated a Scheme for the purposeof giving alternate sites with a condition that the applicantsmust prove that they had been in possession of such housesacquired for not less than five years, which is intended for thepurpose of avoiding ineligible persons from getting the alternatesites. Further, the respondents in the typed set of papers havealso produced various awards of contract given to the awardees,whose lands have been acquired. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In view of the categoric stand taken by the respondents inthe counter affidavit, the writ petition is not maintainable andthe same is liable to the dismissed; accordingly, it is dismissed.No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.khTo1. The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.2. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition (LA) Neyveli 1.1 cc to the Government Pleader, sr. 188331 cc to Mr.N.A.K. Sarma, Advocate, Sr. 184551 cc to Mr.V. Raghavachari, Advocate, Sr. 18449W.P.No.17551 of 1998TS (CO)kk 8/4