High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 13.12.2007Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANWrit Appeal No.828 of 2002SellathalAppellant/5th Respondent in WP 9322/95v.1. The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2. Dharapuram Municipality, represented by its Special Officer, Dharapuram, Erode District...Respondents/Respondents 1 to 4 in WP 9322/953. The Divisional Excise Officer, Dharapuram, Erode District.4. Namberumal NaiduRespondent/Petitioner in WP 9332/95Writ Appeal filed against the order of a learned single Judge ofthis Court dated 08.03.2002 made in writ petition No.9322 of 1995.WP 9322 of 1995 Prayer:to issue a writ of Mandamus or order ordirection in the nature of a writ or any other appropriate writdirect the respondents 1 and 2 to utilise the lands inT.S.Nos.705/1,706,707 and 708 Kulathukunjai Road, ChitravuthampalayamVillage, Dharapuram Taluk, Periyar District for the purpose ofwidening the road and for extension of drainage facilities and inthe event as not utilising the lands to reassign the lands inT.S.Nos. 705/1,706,707 and 708 Kulathukunjai Road,Chitravuthampalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Periyar District tothe petitioner as per Board of Revenue Standing Order 90(32) andallow this writ petition with cost. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.V.N.MohanrajFor Respondents 1 & 3:Mr.Edwin Prabhakar,Government AdvocateFor Respondent 2:Mr.N.SubbarayaluJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.)The appellant in the appeal is the fifth respondent in the writpetition. She got impleaded as such as the legal representative ofthe fourth respondent Pugazhenthi, her husband. The writ petitioncame to be filed by one Namperumal Naidu, the fourth respondent inthe appeal, (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) seekingfor issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 toutilize the land in survey No.705/1, 706, 707 and 708 ofKulathukunjai Road, Chitravudhampalayam village, Dharapuram Taluk,Periyar District for the purpose of widening the road and forextension of the drainage facility and in the event of non utilisingthe land for the said purpose, to reasign the same to the petitioneras per the Board of Revenue Standing Orders 90(32). 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that he was theowner of the lands in the above referred to survey numbers. The landswere acquired for the purpose of construction of school byrespondents 1 and 2. After completion of the acquisition proceedings,possession was handed over to the second respondent. For the reasonsbest known to them, the respondents did not utilise the lands for thepurpose for which it was acquired. The writ petitioner got assigneda portion of the land and the remaining land was encroached upon bythe fourth respondent in the writ petition by puting up aconstruction thereon and obtained a licence for having a liquor shop.When the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up a schoolfor imparting education to the public, the statutory respondentscannot allow the fourth respondent to put up a superstructure andvend liquor. On that premise the writ petitioner came before theCourt for issuance of writ of mandamus. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 contended before the learned single Judgethat the appellant's husband, the fourth respondent in the writpetition filed a suit in O.S. No.187 of 1995 on the file of theDistrict Munsif, Dharapuram and obtained an order of injunctionrestraining them from making any transfer of the land to any otherperson or even change the name in the revenue records. Due topendency of the suit, the statutory respondents 1 and 2 were not able https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to take any action, even though notice under section 182 of theDistrict and Municipalities Act has been issued against the fourthrespondent, the appellant's husband.4.The learned single Judge,after hearing the parties disposed ofthe writ petition by observing that when notice under section 182 ofthe Act has been issued for eviction of the fourth respondent in thewrit petition, interim orders granted by the Civil Court has nothingto do with the said notice. The statutory respondents would haveproceeded further and would have taken further action against thefourth respondent. Thus, the authorities were directed to takesuitable action, particularly when they were not prohibited fromtaking any action pursuant to the notice issued by them. Theappellant got impleaded as fifth respondent after the death of thefourth respondent – husband.5. Before the learned single Judge, there was no representationon behalf of the appellant, the fifth respondent. The fifthrespondent filed the present appeal against the order of the learnedsingle Judge on the premise that her husband, the deceasded fourthrespondent purchased 1546 sq. ft. in T.S. No.705/1, 706, 707, 708 inthe year 1995. He was the legal owner. He was not a party to theland acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances of the case,acquisition proceedings would not bind the fourth respondent andconsequently, the appellant herein. In the stated circumstances, thedirection given by the learned single Judge to the statutoryrespondents to proceed further pursuant to the notice cannot belegally sustained and has to be set aside.6. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerials available on record.7. The lands have been acquired and the award has been passed asearly as 18.04.1946 in Award No.1/1946. It is the admitted case ofthe appellant also that the survey numbers, which are the subjectmatter of the writ petition has been shown to be owned by RajagopalNaidu, and in the award he has been shown as the owner of the land.It is also an undisputed fact that the respondents have takenpossession of the property. It is seen from the grounds of appealthat the appellant's husband has purchased an extent of 1546 sq. ft.,in T.S. Nos.705/1, 706, 707 and 708 in the year 1995 and thereuponfiled a suit before the District Munsif Court in O.S. No.187 of 1995not to transfer the revenue records in favour of any other person. 8. After passing of the award under the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act, the property vests with the Government. It is asettled proposititon of law that after vesting the land so acquiredfor the public purpose, it could very well be used for anotherpublic purpose. However, it cannot be allowed to be encroached uponas done in this case by the respondent authorities. (vide DaulatSingh Surana v. First Land Acquisition Collector, JT 2007 (1) SC 24.Rightly, the respondents authorities have issued notice under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Municipalities Act. Mere filing of the suit in the year 1995praying not to transfer the revenue register in the name of anybodyelse by the deceased husband of the appellant in the year 1995, onthe face of it appears to be something beyond the meeting of theeyes. Though in the writ petition the prayer has been differentlycouched, to put the land for the particular public purpose orreassign the same to the appellant, the learned single Judge has notgranted the prayer, rightly, in our opinion, and directed theauthorities to proceed further to take action against the encroachersand recover the land. The appellant has not made out anyextraordinary case for interference. The appeal fails and it isaccordingly dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarksv/mfTo1. The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2. Dharapuram Municipality, represented by its Special Officer, Dharapuram, Erode District.3. The Divisional Excise Officer, Dharapuram, Erode District.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 73960+1cc to Mr.V.N.Mohan Raj, Advocate Sr 73942+1cc to Mr.M.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate Sr 74130+1cc to Mr.N.Subbarayalu, Advocate Sr 74258ASM (CO)km/5.1.WA. No.828 of 2002