High Court · 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 07.11.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Appeal No.803 of 20031.Ramasamy2.Allamuthu3.Gurusamy4.Kandasamy5.Bomma Naicker ... Appellants (Petitioners in WP.No.13386/95)Vs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquistiion) Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit-I, Madurai. .. Respondents (Respondents in do)Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder dated 07.08.2002 made in W.P.No.13386 of 1995 presented underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certioraricalling for the record of the respondents relating to the notification inG.O.Ms.No.301 Social Welfare dated 31.1.1984 as published in Part IISection 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra Ordinary dated07.2.1984 and quash the said acquisition proceedings.For Appellants : Mrs.Vijayakumari NatarajanFor respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian, Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learnedsingle Judge dated 07.08.2002 made in W.P.No.13386 of 1995, in and bywhich, the learned single Judge, after finding that there is no merit inthe claim and also of the fact that the writ petition has to be dismissedon the ground of laches, has dismissed the same.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well asthe learned Government Advocate for respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forHarijan Welfare Schemes Act (31 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as "theAct) came into force with effect from 24.01.1979. It is further not indispute that the said Act was struck down by the Division Bench of thisCourt on 09.09.1981. Only on 22.11.1994, the Supreme Court upheld theAct as Valid in the decision reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 2114(STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANTHI AMMAL). In the case on hand, it is notin dispute that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issuedunder Central Act on 31.01.1984 and the same has been published in thepublic Gazette on 07.02.1984. After enquiry under Section 5-A anddeclaration under Section 6, finally award was passed on 29.03.1985. Allthe above factual aspects are not in dispute. In other words, when theTamil Nadu Act was not in existence, the notification under Section 4(1)of the Act was published under the Central Act and finally award waspassed on 29.03.1985 under the provisions of the Central Act, which is theonly Act available and applicable on the said date. As stated earlieronly after the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.11.1994, the Stateis permitted to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act forimplementation of the schemes intended for Harijans. In this back ground,let us consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for theappellants and the impugned order of the learned single Judge dismissingthe writ petition. 4. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the appellants submittedthat no proper notice was issued to the mother of the appellants, who wasthe owner of the land at the relevant time. In view of the stand taken bythe appellants that their mother participated in the enquiry under Section5-A of the Act and submitted her objection etc., the said contention isliable to be rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that Rule 3-B has not been complied with. In the absence of correct information tothe effect as to when the objection was submitted by the appellants'mother, the grievance on this aspect cannot be considered.6. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants, by drawing ourattention to Sections 20 to 22 of the Tamil Nadu Act, has submitted thatinasmuch as the acquisition proceedings were initiated after commencementof the State Act, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. We areunable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. 7. In the earlier part of the order, we have already referred to therelevant dates. For the sake of repetition, we reiterate the same onceagain that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was publishedin the Government Gazette on 07.02.1984. Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu Actwas not in the statute book. Only after the order of the Supreme Courtdated 22.11.1994, the State Government is free to invoke the provisions ofTamil Nadu Act for execution of the scheme intended for the welfare of theHarijans. In the case on hand, as already stated, the award came to bepassed on 29.03.1985, i.e., well before the judgment of the Supreme Court.In such circumstances, by applying the principles explained by theHonourable Supreme Court in the very same decision reported in AIR 1995Supreme Court, 2114 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANTHI AMMAL), particularlyin para 18, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for theappellants.8. For the same reasons, we are of the view that the Division Benchdecision reported in 2004 Writ law Reporter 20 (M.R.KAVITHA VS. THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR, NORTH ARCOT, ETC AND ANOTHER) is not helpful to thecase of the appellants. To put it clear, on the date when the Governmenthad issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act conveying theirstand that the lands specified in the schedule to the said notificationare needed for public purpose viz., for provisions of house sites to thelandless Adi Dravidars, Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, was not in existence,by applying the said provisions, the State is not permitted to acquireany land because of the order of this Court dated 09.09.1981. In suchcircumstances, the respondents had rightly invoked the provisions of theCentral Act and issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act andacquired the land by passing an award on 29.03.1985, i.e., well before thejudgment of the Supreme Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In such circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity inthe procedure adopted. Apart from this, inasmuch as the appellantsthemselves have admitted that their mother has participated in theenquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, which was held in the year 1984,there is no explanation at all for not filing the writ petition till 1995when the award was passed in the year 1985. Hence, we are in agreementwith the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that the writpetition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In thesecircumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference.Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, WAMP.No.979 of 2003 is also dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraaTo1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquistiion) Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit-I, Madurai.1 cc To Mr.S.Natarajan, Advocate, SR.53663.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.53073. W.A.No.803 of 2003JRG(CO)RVL 24.11.2006