Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.M.NATARAJAN versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr.M.Natarajan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu - WRIT PETITION NO.12620 of 1996 and WP. 12621 to 12623 of 1996. [2002] RD-TN 299 (29 April 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29/04/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN WRIT PETITION NO.12620 of 1996 and WP. 12621 to 12623 of 1996. Dr.M.Natarajan ... Petitioner in W.P.12620/1996 P.Periyasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.12621/1996 S.Subramaniam ... Petitioner in W.P.12622/1996 T.P.Kandasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.12623/1996 vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

represented by its Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development

Department, Fort St.George,

Madras-600 009.

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Housing Scheme No.II,

Coimbatore-641 018. ... Respondents Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writs of certiorari as stated therein. For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran

For Respondents .. Mr.M.Liagat Ali,

Addl.Govt.Pleader

:COMMON ORDER



These writ petitions are for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.481, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.4.199 5, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 24.5.1995 and 6 Declaration in G.O.(Rt) No.302, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 2.7.1996, published in 'Malai Murasu', dated 4.7.1996, in so far as their respective lands in S.No.292/1A, Kalappatti Village, Coimbatore North.

2.Briefly the facts of the cases are thus. All the petitioners jointly purchased an extent of 5 acres of land in Survey No.292/1A, Kalappatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk, from one M.Ramasamy and M.Sundaram, by a registered sale deed in Document No.2309/91, on 10.4.1991, for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. The petitioners have respectively paid their sale consideration in so far as their shares are concerned. After the purchase, all the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of lands and they jointly applied for mutation in revenue records. The Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North), in his proceedings in MTR No.413/91, dated 23.8.1991, granted joint patta in Patta No.10 47, containing the names of all the petitioners. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer issued chitta and adangal in favour of the petitioners and they prove the possession of the petitioners in so far as the lands purchased by them are concerned. The petitioners, by joint application dated, 30.8.1991, requested the Executive Officer, Kalappatti Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District, for sanction of a lay-out plan for house sites. The Executive Officer in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.633/91/A2, dated 15.10.1991, requested the Director of Town and Country Planning Department, Madras, for sanctioning the lay-out plan and the Director in his proceedings in P.Mu.No.41235/lA2, dated 19.2.1992, sanctioned and approved the lay-out in Ma.Va/DTP No.214/92. During November, 1992, three house sites were sold to three different individuals through registered sale deeds.

The petitioners came to know recently about the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1995 to acquire the lands of the petitioners. 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in G.O.Ms.No.481, dated 27.4.1995, proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners for public purpose, namely, to construct houses under Kalappatti Sub-urban Housing scheme and it has been gazetted on 24.5.1995. The local publication was made on 27.5.1995 in local dailies. The petitioners understand that 5(A) Enquiry notice was issued to the land owners by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1136/88. No notice was received by the petitioners for 5(A) Enquiry, even though the petitioners purchased the land as early as in the year 1991 and mutation has been effected in the revenue records in 1991 itself. The petitioners did not appear in 5(A) Enquiry. The first respondent has passed a declaration under Section 6 in G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 2.7.1996 and it was published in the daily "Malai Malar" on 4.7.1996. All the facts came to the knowledge of the petitioners only in the middle of August, 1996, when the adjacent land owners informed them about the acquisition proceedings.

The entire revenue records pertaining to the lands of the petitioners show that the petitioners are the land owners and not his vendors. The mutation of revenue records were effected in the year 1991 itself. While that being so, the issuance of 4(1) Notification in the name of the vendors of the petitioners is totally erroneous and it shows that the respondents have not applied their mind to the fact of the case and they did not verify the revenue records. In the absence of the Notification under Section 4(1) in the names of the petitioners, further proceedings to acquire the lands without affording an opportunity to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary exercise of power and unreasonable. The respondents atleast, should have taken steps to issue notice to the petitioners at the time of 5(A) enquiry, but they did not do so. The declaration issued under Section 6 also shows the vendors of the petitioners as land owners, which is erroneous. In the master plan drawn by the competent authority, the lands of the petitioners in Survey No.291/1A have been shown as approved lay-out and hence the acquisition proceedings are liable to be struck down on the ground of non application of mind. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to quash the 4(1) Notification and 6 Declaration issued by the respondents in so far as their lands in Survey No.292/1 A, Kalappati village is concerned.

3.The respondents have not filed any counter.

4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr.R.Gandhi contends that the petitioners have purchased the lands by a registered sale deed, dated 10.4.1991 and the mutation in the revenue records were effected in that year itself as could be seen from the proceedings of the Tahsildar, chitta and adangal and that being so, the issuance of 4(1) Notification in the names of the vendors of the petitioners is totally erroneous and liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind by the respondents. The learned senior counsel further contends that non service of notice on the petitioners for enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

5.The Additional Government Pleader produced the files relating to the acquisition proceedings. He also fairly represented that the statutory notice for the enquiry under Section 5(A) has not been served on the petitioners.

6.The petitioners have produced the joint patta No.1047, containing the names of all the petitioners as owners, issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in MTR No.413/91, dated 23.8.1991 and they have also produced the chitta for fasli 1401, issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kalappatti on 26.8.1991, in which, all the four petitioners have been shown as owners of the lands in Survey No.292/1A, Kalappatti village. In addition, the petitioners have also filed adangal, dated 23.8.1991, issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kalappatti, showing all the petitioners as land owners. The copy of the joint application of the petitioners, dated 30.8.1991, for sanction of lay-out plan for house sites in their lands in survey No.292/1A and the copy of the order of the Director of Town and Country Planning, dated 3.10.1991, are also enclosed. The above documents amply show that mutation in the revenue records were effected even in the year 1991 itself. Therefore, the petitioners are the owners even on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and still they are not shown as land owners and the vendors of the petitioners only were shown as owners of the lands in Survey No.292/1A. It is not as if the second respondent did not know about the mutation effected in the revenue records after the purchase made by the petitioners in the year 1991. Volume-IV of the acquisition files produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader, under the caption of '4(1 ) Notification', contains pages 1 to 148. A true copy of the Adangal Extract for fasli 1402 relating to Survey No.292/1A is found at page 29 and in it, the land owner for survey No.292/1A is shown as S. Subramaniam, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.12622 of 1996. This amply proves that the second respondent had knowledge about the petitioners owning the lands in Survey No.292/1A even at the time of 4(1) Notification. But, still, the petitioners are not shown as owners in the Notification.

7.Subsequently, when the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was conducted, admittedly, no notice was served on any one of the petitioners. On the contrary, notice was sent to the vendors of the petitioners but they were also not served with the notice and in the files it is recorded that they were absent and the notice was served by affixture. The learned senior counsel submits that lands to an extent of 2.78 acres in Survey Nos.295/1, 296/2 and 2906/5 in Kalappatti village was sought to be acquired for the very same scheme under Notification in G.O.Ms.No.190, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.2.1994 and that land owner challenged the notification in W.P.No.324 of 1999 on the ground that no notice under Section 5(A) of the Act was served on him and this Court, by order dated 22.3.1999, has quashed the 4(1) Notification on that ground alone. A xerox copy of the order in that writ petition is also produced. In the present case also, no notice was served on the petitioners for enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. It is needless to say that the enquiry contemplated under Section 5(A) of the Act would be full and complete only when the person, who is really interested in the land, is put on notice. It is settled law that enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act is not an empty formality and notice for such enquiry has got to be served strictly in accordance with the mandates of Section 45 of the Act. The land acquisition is carried out based on the records maintained by the revenue department and the files relating to this acquisition also contain the revenue record which shows that the petitioners are the owners of the land in Survey No.292/1A and inspite of it, the enquiry officer did not take steps to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. Therefore, without giving notice to the petitioners for the enquiry under Section 5(A), the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quite illegal and they are liable to be quashed.

8.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.481, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.4.1995, published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 24.5.1995 as well as the Declaration under Section 6, published in the Government Gazette in G.O.(Rt) No.302, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 2.7.1996, are quashed in so far as the petitioners lands in Survey No.292/1A, Kalappatti village are concerned. However, it is open to the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, with opportunity to the petitioners. No costs. Connected W.M.P.Nos.17068, 1707 0, 17072 and 17074 of 1996 are closed. Index: Yes. 29.04.2002. Internet: Yes.

gb.

To:

1.The Secretary to Government,

Housing and Urban Development

Department, Fort St.George,

Madras-600 009.

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Housing Scheme No.II,

Coimbatore-641 018.

C.NAGAPPAN,J

gb.

COMMON ORDER IN



W.P.NOS.12620 TO 12623 OF 1996 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.