N.Dhandayutham v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.12.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.Nos.1314, 452, 453, 454 & 7399 of 2002andW.P.M.P.Nos.708, 710, 711,5645, 5647, 5649, 1836, 5643, 5644, 5646,5648, 10246 of 2002 and W.P.V.P.992 of 2003W.P.No.1314 of 2002N.Dhandayutham.. Petitioner-Vs-1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector, Salem.3. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe respondents relating to the order of the 3rd respondent inROC.No.1437/90 (A) dated 21.01.2002 and quash the same in so far as itrelates to the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos.33/6B, 33/8, 33/9,33/10, 33/16, 37/5, 37/6, 37/7, 37/11 and 39/2 of Attayampatti Village,Salem Taluk, Salem District.For Petitioners : Mr.R.Doraisamy Senior Counsel for Mr.Kandan Doraisamy For Respondents : Mrs.Sheba Government AdvocateW.P.Nos.452 to 454 of 2002P.Balasubramanian.. Petitioner in W.P.No.452/02K.Chandrasekar.. Petitioner in W.P.No.453/02S.Selvaraj.. Petitioner in W.P.No.454/02 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -Vs-1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem... Respondents in all the WPsWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe respondents relating to the order of the 2nd respondent ending inROC.No.1673/95 (A) dated 04.01.2002 and quash the same in so far as itrelates to the petitioners in each of the petitions.For Petitioners : Mr.R.Doraisamy Senior Counsel for Mr.Kandan Doraisamy For Respondents : Mrs.Sheba Government Advocate W.P.No.7399 of 20021. Bagavathi Gounder (Deceased)2. Ramasamy Gounder (Deceased)3. R.Venkatachalam4. Alamelu5. B.Rajaram (petitioners 3 to 5 are substituted in the place of 1st and 2nd deceased petitioners respectively as per the order passed in WP.Mp.32368/03 dt.15.12.03 and W.P.M.P. No.1789 of 2008 by KCJ on 17.12.2008).. Petitioners-Vs-1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.3. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Sankari, Salem District.4. The Tahsildar, Sankari, Salem District... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the respondents relating to the orders of the 4threspondent ending with the order in ROC.No.5793/2001 (D) dated11.09.2001 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitionersherein and forbearing the respondents herein and their men, agents andsubordinates from in any manner disturbing the possession and enjoymentof the land of the petitioners in Survey No.520/2 of DevannagoundanurVillage, Sankari Taluk, Salem District in the absence of specificprovision of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 enabling them to do so.For Petitioners : Mr.R.Doraisamy Senior Counsel for Mr.Kandan Doraisamy For Respondents : Mrs.Sheba Government AdvocateC O M M O N O R D E RHeard Mr.R.Doraisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioners, Mrs.Sheba, learned Government Advocate appearing for therespondents and perused the records.2. The short question that arises for consideration in allthese five cases is whether the respondent Special Tahsildar wasright in issuing the notice in Form No.10 with Annexure-XII referringto Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and asking thepetitioners to vacate and deliver possession of their lands on or beforea particular date. 3. It is an admitted case in all these five cases that theacquisition proceedings were initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978,which reached finality by publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78 by the District Collector, Salem. 4. At the relevant point of time, the Act was held to beunconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.797 of1980, dated 09.09.1981. The State has taken up the matter before theSupreme Court and the Supreme Court has allowed the plea of the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The judgment has subsequently been reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 (Stateof Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and others). In the saidcase the Supreme Court while upholding the said legislation, held thatthe Section relating to the provision of awarding compensation byinstalments alone was invalid. The Supreme Court was conscious of allthe pending matters and gave direction with reference to the pendingproceedings in paragraph 18 which is as follows:"18. Section 20 of the said Act states that theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, save as expresslyprovided in the said Act, shall cease to apply to any landwhich is required for the purpose specified in Section 4(1)and such land shall be acquired only in accordance with theprovisions of the said Act. Consequently, Section 22 makesthe provisions of the said Act applicable also to cases inwhich proceedings have been started before the commencementof the said Act under the Land Acquisition Act for thepurposes of Harijan Welfare Schemes, provided that noawards have been made under the Land Acquisition Act. Wesee no unreasonableness in this provision, particularlyhaving regard to the terms of Section 20. We must, however,take into account the fact that the judgment under appealstriking down the said Act was delivered as far back asSeptember 1981, and no stay thereof was obtained from thisCourt. It is likely, therefore, that in cases whereproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had already beenstarted to acquire lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, theymight have been revived and completed in the interregnum.We, therefore, make it clear that the provisions of Section22 shall have no effect in such cases where awards havebeen made."5. It was stated that during the pendency of the proceedings beforethe Supreme Court, even if an Award is passed under the Central Act,that was not to be reopened and only in cases where no finality isreached, the authorities were constrained to start proceedings afreshunder the State Act in view of Section 20 of the State Act. 6. In the present case no such contingency has ever arisen forcomplying with paragraph 18 of the Judgment in Ananthi Ammal case (citedsupra). The Award in the present cases are passed only under the StateAct and the declaratory relief given by this Court holding the Actunconstitutional has now been removed by the authoritative pronouncementof the Supreme Court. It is axiomatic under Article 141 of theConstitution of India, such a declaration is binding on all the Courts.Therefore, the relief obtained by the petitioners which is declaratoryrelief having been now removed by an order of the Supreme Court, theAwards passed against them has to come to life. Once the Award becomesfinal, it is obligatory on the part of the land owners to vacate and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ surrender possession of the land. Therefore, the authorities merelyreminding the petitioners or their legal representatives to hand overpossession of the land cannot be found fault with by this Court. Merewrong quoting of the provisions of the Central Act will not enure to thebenefit of the petitioners. At the maximum the impugned letter willhave to be construed as a mere reminder to the land owners to surrenderpossession which is a statutory obligation made under the Act. Thepetitioners having lost the main battle regarding the constitutionalvalidity of the Act cannot now clutch on to a wrong reference of theprovision of Law found in the impugned letter sent by the respondentTahsildar. Under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78, it is clearlystated that on and from the date on which the Notification under Section4(1) is published in the District Gazette, the land absolutely vest withthe Government free from all encumbrance. Therefore, there is no escapefor the petitioners to stall further action taken by the respondents inrecovering possession. There is no cause of action to challenge theimpugned notice.7. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.1314 of 2002, the thirdrespondent has clearly stated that there is no necessity to issue anysuch letter as already the mandatory requirement of law has beencomplied with in the case of the petitioners. In fact in the othercounter affidavit, the District Collector, Salem has stated that theenjoyment of the acquired lands by the petitioners will amount totrespass and they are liable for criminal prosecution.8. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out to interferewith the impugned letter sent by the respondents directing thepetitioners to hand over possession of the land. The writ petitions aremisconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed.Since The petitioners even after the acquisition made after 28 years ofthe Award are holding on to the land, it is well open to the respondentsto take measures to secure possession of the lands and also to proceedto distribute the same for the purpose for which it was acquired.Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.kkTo1.The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The District Collector, Salem.3. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem.4. The Tahsildar, Sankari, Salem District.+ 1 CC to M/s.Muthumani Duraisami, Advocate SR.NO.70575+ 2 CC to Government Pleader,High Court, Chennai SR.NO.70574,70851)W.P.Nos.1314, 452, 453,454 & 7399 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.Nos.708, 710, 711,5647, 5649, 1836, 5643, 5644,5645,5646, 5648, 10246 of 2002and W.P.V.P.992 of 2003KLT(CO)EM/23.12.08