The Honourable Mr v. The District Collector Vellore District Vellore2. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 23.1.2009Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.428 of 20041. G.Sriramulu 2. S.Padma alias Padmavathi .. Petitionersboth rep.by their General Power of AttorneyAgent N.B.Narayanasami NaiduVersus1. The District Collector Vellore District Vellore2. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (ADW), Gudiyatham, Vellore District .. RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to callfor the records on the file of the respondents relating toproceedings for acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners inS.Nos.30/2, 42/2, 30/1 & 42/1 in No.63, Pichanoor Village ofGudiyatham Taluk in Vellore District in R.C.A.No.469/1999 resultingin Award No.1/2003-04 made by the second respondent in R.C.A.No.469/99, dated 15.9.2003 and quash such proceedings and award. For Petitioners : Mr.S.B.S.Raman For Respondents : Mrs.D.Geetha Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners are the absoluteowners of the agricultural lands in No.63, Pichanoor village ofGudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. The lands in S.Nos.30/2, 42/2,43/2A stand in the name of the first petitioner. The lands in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.Nos.30/1, 42/1 and 43/1B stand in the name of the secondpetitioner. The lands are agricultural in nature. The entire extentof lands is being irrigated by well water and paddy is beingcultivated therein and there are more than 200 mango, coconut andteak trees in the said lands. 3. It has been further stated that notice in Form-I underR.C.A.No.469/99, dated 30.6.1999, had been issued by the secondrespondent proposing to acquire a portion of the lands owned by thepetitioners for the purpose of house-sites of Adi Dravidars andArunthathiyars of Rajipatti, H/O Kondasamudram and R.S.Nagar ofGudiyatham Town. The name of the first petitioner did not figure inthe Form-I notice, though his lands in S.Nos.30/1, 42/1 and 43/1Bwere proposed to be acquired. In their objections submitted, on27.7.1999, the petitioners had, inter alia, pointed out that alreadyan extent of 1.75 acres in S.Nos.44/2B2, 44/2B3, and 44/2C1 ofPichanoor Village of Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, were beingacquired from the second petitioner and her father for the purpose offormation of Left Main Canal under Mordhana Reservoir Project,Gudiyatham. Further, an extent of 1.76 acres, with a circularagricultural well and pump set, in Kondasamudram Village ofGudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, had been acquired from the fatherof the second petitioner for construction of houses under theNeighbourhood Scheme, resulting in award No.4/88-89, dated13.10.1988. Various objections had been raised in the writtenrepresentation submitted to the first respondent, on 20.11.2000. Withregard to S.No.31, it has been stated that it is adjacent to thelands of the petitioners and forms its Southern and Easternboundaries. A licensed quarry is in existence, being operated underthe quarry license issued by the first respondent, on 28.10.2002,valid for a period of five years. Since no further proceedings hadbeen taken by the respondents, with regard to the lands in question,objections were lodged with the second respondent. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioners were underthe impression that the proposed acquisition proceedings had beendropped. However, the second respondent had issued Form-III notice,dated 12.8.2003, to the petitioners informing that the firstrespondent had, by a notification No.17, dated 3.7.2001, issued underSection 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for HarijanWelfare Scheme Act, 1978, decided to acquire the said land inPichanoor village of Gudiyatham Taluk. The said notice had alsocalled for objections, with regard to the proposed acquisitionproceedings and a personal hearing had been offered, on 28.8.2003.After attending the personal hearing, a written objection, dated28.8.2003, had also been submitted. In the objections raised onbehalf of the petitioners, it was pointed out, inter alia, that thelands in question had already been acquired for other projects.However, of these projects, not a single house had been constructed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ even though the lands had been acquired in the year, 1998. The landswere being cultivated by patta holding agriculturalists like thepetitioners. As many as 40 houses were unsold and are readilyavailable for occupation in the housing projects undertaken inadjoining Kondasamudram-Madura and Rajakoil. The lands had beenacquired for housing projects for Adi Dravidars and Arunthathiyars inSethuvandai Panchayat, more than five years back and not a singlehouse had been constructed for the intended beneficiaries. In fact,some other lands in Pichanoor Village had been sought to be acquiredfor the same project by a Section 4(2) notice in R.C.A.No.1973/1995,dated 11.12.1995. while so, the petitioners were informed that anaward No.1/2003-04 had been made in R.C.A.No.469/1999, on 15.9.2003,whereby 6.28 acres belonging to the petitioners had been acquired outof a total of 6.57 acres, which is the subject matter of the section4(1) notification. 5. It has been further stated that the copy of the award had notbeen served on the petitioners by the respondents. On coming to knowthat an award had been passed, the petitioners had rushed to theoffice of the second respondent, on 27.12.2003, and had collected acopy of the said award. No report was made by the respondentsconsidering the objections submitted, on 28.8.2003. Therefore, thesaid award does not disclose the application of mind by therespondents to the objections made by the petitioners, nor does itdisclose compliance, under sections 5 and 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct before the award No.1/2003-04 had been passed by the secondrespondent in R.C.A.No.469/99, dated 15.9.2003. In suchcircumstances, the petitioners had filed the present writ petition,under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent, it has been stated that the Adi Dravidars andArunthathiyars of Ashok Nagar, R.S.Nagar and Rajipatti of GudiyatnamTown had applied for house sites for residential purposes. The LandAcquisition Officer and the then Special Tahsildar (Adi DravidarWelfare), Gudiyatham, had inspected the colonies and had found thatthe house site pattas have to be provided to 110 houseless poor AdiDravidars and Arunthathiyars. As the Gudiyatham Town is a secondClass Municipality and no suitable poramboke lands and vacant nathamwere available in the area within the Gudiyatham Municipality, theLand Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildar (Adi DravidarWelfare) had selected the petitioners' land in Pichanoor Village,which is the adjacent village to Gudiyatham Municipality. A showcause notice in Form I (Rule 3(1) Section 2 of Section 4 of TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978,(Tamil Nadu Act 31/78) was issued, on 30.6.1999, to the land ownersas per the village accounts maintained by the Village AdministrativeOfficer, Pichanoor Village. At the time of the enquiry conducted, on27.7.1999, both the land owners V.M.Gnanasegaran and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.M.Sachidanandam and the petitioner N.B.Narayanasamy Naidu hadappeared and the land owners had given a statement that the landswere sold to the petitioner's daughter, Padma and son-in-lawSriramulu and they had further stated that the lands sold toSriramulu was only under an agreement of sale and the sale deed hadnot been registered. N.B.Narayanasami Naidu had given a statementthat his daughter and son-in-law are residing at Bukrain in a gulfcountry and the lands were being purchased from their personalearnings and that he was objecting to the land acquisitionproceedings. His objections were recommended to be over-ruled. Sincethe petitioners were residing abroad, the necessary 4 (1) proposalswere sent to the Collector vide R.C.A.469/99, dated 30.11.1999. Onthe Section 4(1) proposal, the then District Adi Dravidar WelfareOfficer, Vellore, had inspected the lands, while one Kamalanathan hadobjected to the lands S.Nos.43/1 and 2 being acquired in as he hadfiled a writ petition in W.P.No.3103 of 2000, challenging theproposed Land Acquisition in S.Nos.43/1 and 2. Therefore, it wasdecided to delete the said Survey Nos.43/1 and 2 and selected S.No.31for the approach road and the necessary Section 4 (1) notice had beensent to the land owner Venkata Muni. The revised Section 4(1)proposals were sent to the Collector in R.C.A.469/99, dated30.6.2000. 7. It has been further stated that after due consideration, theCollector of Vellore District, had overruled the objections raised bythe land owners and had ordered the publication in the DistrictGazette, vide his proceedings Rc.K.10/50533/2000, dated 22.6.2001. Assuch, the Section 4(1) notification had been published in the VelloreDistrict Extra-ordinary Gazette No.17, dated 3.7.2001. After gettingthe Pre Valuation statement approval in Collector's proceedingsRc.K.10/50533/2000, dated 18.6.2003, an award enquiry notice, in FormIII, had been issued, on 12.8.2003, fixing date of the enquiry on28.8.2003. The petitioner N.B.Narayanasami Naidu had attended theenquiry conducted, on 28.8.2003 and had submitted an objectionpetition stating that the same objections had been raised at the timeof the Section 4(1) enquiry. Since his objection had already beenoverruled by the Collector of Vellore District and an award had beenpassed in Award No.1/2003-04, (Rc.A/469/99), dated 5.9.2003. Thecompensation amount of 3,02,799/- had been ordered to be kept in theRevenue Deposit. Thereafter, a copy of the award had been sent byregistered post. 8. It has also been stated that since the acquired lands stoodin the names of V.M.Gnanasegaran, and V.M.Sachidhanandam the name ofthe first petitioner, Sriramulu had not been mentioned in the Form Inotice issued, on 30.6.1999. As per the field inspection made by thethen Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Gudiyatham, on26.6.1999 and 19.9.2001, there was only a dilapidated and unused wellin the lands in question without any cultivation being done. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quarry site was at a distance of 2 furlongs from the acquired landsand there was no threat to life due to the quarrying activities.Since no suitable poramboke lands were available in the village, thepatta lands had to be acquired. The lands were acquired by theHousing Board and not by the Harijan Welfare Department and the housesites allotted to the Adi Dravidars and Arunthathiyars in SethuvandaiVillage have been fully occupied and dwelling houses had beenconstructed and the allottees are residing in the said houses. Thelands acquired by the proceedings in R.C.A.1973/95 in Pichanoorvillage are for providing house sites for Adi Dravidars ofR.S.Nagar. However, by the present land acquisition proceedings, ithas been proposed to allot house site pattas to the Adi Dravidars andArunthathiyars of Ashok Nagar, R.S.Nagar and Rajipatti in GudiyathamTown. The objections raised on behalf of the petitioners have beenconsidered before the award proceedings, in award No.1/2003-04, dated15.9.2003, had been passed. In such circumstances, the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits. 9. It has been further stated that since the award had beenpassed, on 15.9.2003 and the writ petition had been filed only, on9.1.2004, the said writ petition filed on behalf of the petitionerscannot be sustained in the eye of law. Since all the formalities hadbeen completed in accordance with law and the provisions of the TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, thereis no merit in the present writ petition. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionershad submitted that the award No.1/2003-04, made by the secondrespondent, in R.C.A.No.469/1999, dated 15.9.2003, received by thepetitioners, on 27.12.2003, is contrary to law, equity and violatesthe fundamental rights of the petitioners. 11. It has been further stated that the name of the firstpetitioner, who is the owner of the lands in question, did not figurein the Form-I notice, though his lands were proposed to be acquired.The respondents had failed to consider the fact that the lands soughtto be acquired by them are agricultural in nature, wherein crops arebeing cultivated and trees have been grown. The respondents hadignored G.O.Ms.No.586, dated 12.3.1981, wherein, it has been directedthat the agricultural lands in which food crops had been raisedshould not be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. 12. It has been further stated that the respondents had failedto consider the fact that the lands belonging to the secondpetitioner and her father measuring an extent of 1.75 acres inS.Nos.44/2B2, 44/2B3 and 44/2C1 of Pichanoor Village, GudiyathamTaluk, Vellore District, had been acquired for the purpose offormation of Left Main Canal, under the Mordhana Reservoir Project.Further, an extent of 1.76 acres in Kondasamudram Village, Gudiyatham https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Taluk, Vellore District, belonging to the father of the secondpetitioner had also been acquired for the construction of housesunder the Neighbourhood Scheme. The respondents had also failed toconsider that the licensed quarry situated in S.No.31, forming theSouthern and Eastern boundaries of the lands belonging to thepetitioners, in which blasting operations are being carried on, wouldpose a serious threat to the lifes and properties of persons, whowould occupy the acquired lands, if they are allotted house sitestherein. The respondents ought to have considered the fact that otherporamboke lands, belonging to the Government, were available in thelocality. They should have also considered the fact that none of theallottees had constructed houses in Kondasamudram Village. Further,the constructed houses in the housing projects undertaken inadjoining Kondasamudram-Madura Rajakoil have remained unsold. 13. It has also been stated that the respondents had not givenany notice on the passing of the award No.1/2003-04, inR.C.A.No.469/1999, dated 15.9.2003. The respondents have not served acopy of the award to the petitioners. They have failed to considerthe various objections raised by the petitioners and had proceededwith the proposed acquisition proceedings, in an arbitrary manner.Even the award does not indicate the application of mind by therespondents in considering the written objections made by thepetitioners. None of the procedures established by law have beenfollowed by the respondents before the passing of the award.Therefore, the impugned award No.1/2003-04 in R.C.A.No.469/1999,dated 15.9.2003, is liable to be quashed, as prayed for by thepetitioners in the present writ petition. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that all the necessary formalities havebeen followed, in accordance with law, before the award, dated15.9.2003, had been passed acquiring the lands said to be belongingto the petitioners for providing of house sites pattas for the poorAdi Dravidars and Arunthathiyars of Gudiyatham area. Since nosuitable poramboke lands and vacant natham lands were available inthe Gudiyatham Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialTahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) had selected the petitioners' landsin Pichanoor village adjacent to Gudiyatham Municipality for thepurpose of the acquisition proceedings. A show cause notice, in FormI, had been issued, in accordance with the provisions of the TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, on30.6.1999, to V.M.Gnansekaran and V.M.Sachidanandam, as per thevillage accounts maintained by the Village Administrative Officer,Pichanoor Village. At the time of the enquiry, conducted on27.7.1999, the said land owner and N.B.Narayanasami Naidu, the powerAgent of the petitioners, had appeared and had submitted a statementraising objections against the land acquisition proceedings. Theobjections had been overruled and the necessary Section 4(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposals had been sent to the Collector, vide proceedings, dated30.11.1999. After considering the objections raised by the landowners, the District Collector, Vellore District, had ordered thatthe necessary publication be made in the District Gazette, vide hisproceedings, dated 22.6.2001. As such, the Section 4(1) notificationhad been published in the Vellore District Extraordinary GazetteNo.17, dated 3.7.2001. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that N.B.Narayanasami Naidu, the power agent of thepetitioner, had attended the enquiry conducted, on 28.8.2003.Pursuant to the award an enquiry notice, in Form-III, had been issuedon 28.8.2003 objections had been raised by the said N.B.NarayanasamiNaidu. Since the objections raised by N.B.Narayanasami Naidu hadalready been overruled by the Collector, Vellore District, an awardhad been passed, in Award No.1/2003-04, (R.C.A.469/99), dated5.9.2003. The compensation amount of Rs.3,02,799/- had also beenordered to be paid to the land owners. The claim of the petitionersthat the lands acquired by the respondents were agricultural innature has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents. 16. It has been stated that at the time of the field inspection,on 26.6.1999, by the then Special Tahsildar,(Adi Dravidar Welfare),Gudiyatham, he had found that the lands in question were barrenwithout any cultivation and there was an unused well and noelectricity connection had been obtained for the well. Again, duringthe field inspection, on 19.9.2001, it was found that the said landswere in the same condition, as on 26.6.1999. There was no paddycultivation, as claimed by the petitioners, nor there were treesgrown in the said lands. Since all the necessary formalities had beencomplied with by the respondents, as required under law, the claimsmade by the petitioners cannot be sustained.17. It has been further contended that the Form I notice hadbeen served on the original owners of the lands in question, on30.6.1999. They had appeared during the enquiry and had raised theirobjections. The land owners had stated that the lands had been soldto Sriramulu and padmavathy, who were living abroad. N.B.NarayanasamiNaidu, who is the father-in-law of the first petitioner and thefather of the second petitioner, had submitted his objections, on21.7.1999, on behalf of the petitioners. During the enquiry, dated27.7.1999, the original land owner and the subsequent purchasers hadsubmitted their applications. However, the objections had beenoverruled and a report had been submitted to the Vellore DistrictCollector, on 27.4.2001. Thereafter necessary formalities had beencompleted and the award had been passed, on 15.9.2003, and thecompensation had been deposited in the State Bank of India. 18. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the respondents is that the petitioners cannot challenge the landacquisition proceedings after the passing of the award. The award hadbeen passed, on 15.9.2003 and the present writ petition had beenfiled only in the month of January, 2004. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had reliedon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LAKSHMI Vs. THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM & ANOTHER (2006 WRIT L.R.416) to contendthat the petitioners ought to have been issued with the notice inForm I, under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forHarijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979. As such, notice had not beenissued to them by the respondents before the completion of the landacquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition ofLand for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had alsorelied on the following decisions in P.S.SUBRAMANIAM MUDALIAR &ANOTHER Vs. THE COLLECTOR (2004 WRIT L.R.782), VEDANAYAGAM S.P. Vs.SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (1996 WRIT L.R.348) and LAKSHMIVs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM & ANOTHER (2006 WRIT L.R.416), tofurther contend that the land acquisition proceedings, conductedwithout issuing notice to the land owners or persons interestedtherein, would be vitiated. 21. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for therespondents is that the writ petitioner has filed the present writpetition after the award had been passed in the land acquisitionproceedings and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on thefollowing decisions in support of her contentions:(i) TEJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 2003 SC 2414)(ii)RAMALINGAM AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-600 009 AND OTHERS (2005 (3) CTC 1)(iii)S.HARSHAVARDHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2005 (3) CTC 691) (iv) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR Vs. SHAH HYDER BELG (AIR 2000 SC 671) (v) N.KUNNAI GOWDER N. Vs. THE COIMBATORE DISTRICT, CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD., (2007 (5) CTC 491) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vi) THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. P.KARUPPA KONAR (2007 (5) CTC 355).22. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioners, as well as the respondents, and inview of the decisions cited by the learned counsels and on a perusalof the records available, this Court is of the considered view thatthe petitioners have not now shown sufficient cause or reason forthis Court to grant the prayer, as prayed for in the present writpetition. 23. From the records available, it is clear that the necessaryprocedures established by the provisions of the the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, and theRules framed thereunder had been followed by the respondents duringthe land acquisition proceedings resulting in the award of the secondrespondent, dated 15.9.2003. Even if it could be said that thepetitioners are interested parties, as the owners of the lands soughtto be acquired by the respondents, it is clear from the recordsavailable before this Court that they had been given sufficientopportunities to raise their objections against the acquisitionproceedings. The grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners, inchallenging the acquisition proceedings and the subsequent awardpassed as a result of the said proceedings, are not sustainable inthe eye of law. No valid reasons had been shown by the petitionersfor this Court to hold that the land acquisition proceedings arevitiated. 24. Further, it is not in dispute that the present writ petitionhad been filed subsequent to the passing of the award, on 15.9.2003.It is well settled, in view of the decisions cited supra, that a writpetition challenging the award, after it has been passed, is notmaintainable. In such view of the matter, the present writ petitionis liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable, at this stage. Hence,the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connectedW.P.M.P.No.32415 of 2005 is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lanTo:1. The District Collector Vellore District Vellore2. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (ADW), Gudiyatham, Vellore District +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 3459KM(CO)km/10.2.W.P.No.428 of 2004