N.Ponnusamy v. The Secretary to Government, TamilNadu, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.12.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.19703 of 2009 andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009N.Ponnusamy...Petitioner Vs1.The Secretary to Government, TamilNadu, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.3.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri....Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents totake appropriate actions on the representation submitted by thepetitioner dated 25.03.2009 regarding allotment of house sites forthe Arundhadhiyar people as agreed by the respondents and thebeneficiaries in the alternative lands surrendered by thepetitioner measuring 2.08 Acres comprised in S.No.496/2-A andre-conveyance of their lands measuring 2.54 Acres comprised inS.No.502/2 back to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan,G.A. O R D E RHeard both sides.2. The petitioner is the resident of Sikarala Alli Village,Pennagaram Taluk. He has come forward to file the present writpetition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider hisrepresentation dated 25.03.2009 regarding allotment of house sites https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for Arundhadhiyar community in the alternative lands surrendered bythe petitioner measuring 2.08 acres comprised in S.No.496/2A andre-conveyance of their lands measuring 2.54 acres comprised inS.No.502/2 back to the petitioner.3. In the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate wasdirected to take notice and pending the notice, this Court orderedstatus quo on 30.09.2009. 4. The third respondent has come forward with a petition beingM.P.No.2 of 2009 for vacating the status quo order, supported by acounter affidavit. However, the main writ petition itself was takenup for hearing.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner on his own has come forward to offer the land to anextent of 2.54 acres in the same village in S.No.496/2A. Subsequentto his offer, a meeting of the beneficiaries was convened by theRevenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri with the petitioner on08.02.2007. The beneficiaries have agreed to receive the offer madeby the petitioner/land owner and it was proposed after thetransfer, appropriate recommendation should be made through theDistrict Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to the State Government andthereafter, the beneficiaries will be given necessary pattas. Sincethe respondents have not adhered to the minutes of the PeaceCommittee meeting and also they did not consider the request forre-conveyance of the petitioner's land, the present writ petitioncame to be filed.6. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent,these facts were denied. It was stated that the land in SurveyNo.502/02 to an extent of 2.24 hectares situated in Sikaralahallivillage was acquired for the purpose of granting house sites toArundhathiyar community. The land acquisition proceedings wereinitiated during the year 1982 and a draft notification under theCentral Act, 1/1984 was issued on 31.12.1982 and the same waspublished in the Government Gazette on 27.12.1982. Section 5Aenquiry was held on 14.02.1983 at Taluk office. Subsequently, draftdeclaration was sent to the Government and the same was approved bythe Government in G.O.Ms.No.1713 Social Welfare Department dated30.05.1983. 7. After the award enquiry was conducted on 26.07.1983, anaward was passed in Award No.1/83/84 on 27.07.1983. Since the landowners did not appear in the award enquiry, the compensation amountwas deposited in Sub-Court, Dharmapuri at Krishangiri vide demanddraft dated 03.08.1983 drawn on the State Bank of India,Krishnagiri payable to the Sub-Judge, Dharmapuri. 8. It was stated that the said land acquisition proceedingswere challenged by the owners of lands before this Court inW.P.No.8166 of 1983. That writ petition was dismissed by this Courton 28.08.1993 and the acquisition proceedings became final. Thepossession of the land was taken over on 21.02.1994 and house site https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pattas were issued to the beneficiaries by the Special Tahsildar,i.e.,the third respondent. Since there was an encroachment in thesaid land, the authorities took steps to remove the encroachers.The land owners filed O.S.No.480/1983 on the file of the DistrictMunsif Court, Dharmapuri to stay all the proceedings initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Munsif did not grantany interim order. It was thereafter, the writ petitions came to befiled before this Court which were dismissed. 9. It was stated that no doubt a Peace Committee meeting washeld between the beneficiaries and the land owners on 18.12.2007.The suggestion made by the petitioner was placed in the meeting ofthe beneficiaries and they were not willing to accept the alternatesite in S.No.496 which is situated one km away from the lands inexisting survey No.502/2 which was acquired under the Act. It isunder these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to filethe present writ petition and obtained a status quo order.10. The contention raised by the petitioner that there shouldbe a re-conveyance of land on the ground that he was willing tooffer an alternative land cannot be countenanced by this Court forthe simple reason that once an acquisition proceedings is initiatedunder the Central Act, and when the Collector had made an awardunder Section 11, he can take possession of the land, whichthereupon vest absolutely with the Government free from allencumbrances. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the petitionerto contend that he is still the owner. 11. In the present case, the entire procedure have been gonethrough and compensation amount had also been deposited in the Sub-Court. The challenge made by the land owners to the proceedingswere also repelled by this Court. Therefore, there is no scope forthe petitioner to contend that he has right over the said land.12. In the present case, as set out in the counter affidavitfiled by the third respondent, the award proceedings were completedas early as 27.7.1983 by passing a final award in Award No.1/83-84.At the relevant time, the Central Act 1/1894 did not even have anyprovisions for re-conveyance. In fact Section 48(B) to theCentral Act was introduced only by the Tamil Nadu Act 16/97.Therefore the petitioner cannot ask for re-conveyance either in lawor in fact. Under the provisions of the amended Act of the year1997 only Section 48(1) provides for relief to any land owner incase Government withdraws from any such acquisition. Section 48(2)provides that the Collector shall determine the amount ofcompensation due for the damage suffered by the owner inconsequences of the notice or any proceedings thereunder, shall paysuch amount to the person interested. 13. The Supreme Court vide its decision in Tamil Nadu HousingBoard v. Keeravani Ammal and Others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2602dealt with the scope of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. In paragraphs 10 and 11, it was observed as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "10. We have already noticed that in the Writ Petition,there are no sufficient allegations justifyinginterference by the Court. Mere claim of possession bythe writ petitioners is not a foundation on which therelief now granted could have been rested either by thelearned single judge or by the Division Bench of theHigh Court. On the materials, no right to relief hasbeen established by the writ petitioners.11.We may also notice that once a piece of land hasbeen duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, theland becomes the property of the State. The State candispose of the property thereafter or convey it toanyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose forwhich it was acquired, only for the market value thatmay be fetched for the property as on the date ofconveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disablethe State from giving back the property for anythingless than the market value. In State of Kerala andOrs. Vs. M.Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr.[(1997) 5S.C.C.432] in a similar situation, this Court observed:"The question emerges: whether the Government canassign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settledlaw that if the land is acquired for a public purpose,after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of theland could be used for any other public purpose. Incase there is no other public purpose for which theland is needed, then instead of disposal by way of saleto the erstwhile owner, the land should be put topublic auction and the amount fetched in the publicauction can be better utilised for the public purposeenvisaged in the Directive Principles of theConstitution. In the present case, what we find isthat the executive order is not in consonance with theprovision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Underthese circumstances, the Division Bench is welljustified in declaring the executive order as invalid.Whatever assignment is made, should be for a publicpurpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government shouldbe sold only through the public auctions so that thepublic also gets benefited by getting higher value..."14. During the hearing of that case the introduction ofSection 48-B by the State amended in to the Act was also brought tothe notice of the Court. In paragraphs 11 and 12, the SupremeCourt observed as follows:-"...Section 48B introduced into the Act in the Stateof Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such aprovision has to be strictly construed and strictcompliance with its terms insisted upon. Whethersuch a provision can be challenged for its validity,we are not called upon to decide here.12. We are thus of the view that the writpetitioners, the contesting respondents, have not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made out any case for interference by the Court orfor grant of any relief to them. It is thereforenot necessary for us to go into the furthercontention raised on the scope of Section 48B ofthe Act, whether the writ petitioners haveestablished any claim to the lands, whether the re-conveyance can only be to the original owners andnot to others and whether if possession has alreadybeen made over to the Housing Board, the Statecould exercise its power under that provision. Weleave open those questions for the High Court toconsider as and when the occasion arises on itbeing approached in the context of Section 48B ofthe Act. Suffice it to say that the decision of theHigh Court in the Writ Petition in question istotally unsustainable and deserves to be setaside."15. At the relevant time, it was also brought to the notice ofthis Court about the introduction of Section 48-B by the State.Construing that provision also, the Supreme Court held that thescope of 48-B is very narrow and it has to be strictly construed.This Court in more than one case has held that for applying thescope of Section 48-B there must be an opinion from therequisitioning authority that lands were not utilised by them. Whensuch lands were returned to the Government by the requisitioningauthority, then the State will have to consider whether those landscan be utuilised for any other public purpose. Only in suchcircumstances, the land can be returned to the original land ownerafter getting refund of the compensation amounts paid. 16. In the present case, the third respondent has filed acounter affidavit expressing their intention to retain the land. Aspecific averment in paragraph 9 states that the beneficiaries arenot willing to take the offer of any alternative land. Consideringthe fact that already house site pattas were issued, there is novested right on the petitioner to claim re-conveyance under Section48. Further, 48-B itself came long after the acquisitionproceedings were over. Even assuming without admitting that Section48-B is applicable to the case of the petitioner, still in thelight of the stand taken by the respondents, the relief claimed bythe petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. 17. In the light of the above, the writ petition standsdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionis closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsvki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government, TamilNadu, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.3.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.+ 1 cc to Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Advocate, SR 69609+ 1 cc to Govt., Pleader, SR 69559W.P.No.19703 of 2009SJ (CO)RH (8.1.10)17.12.2009