This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders under Section 48-2 of the Land Acquisition Act for the return of the land bearing Survey No.1675 to an extent of 3.42.5 ares, Survey No.1680 to an extent of 3.21.0 ares, Survey No.1681 to an extent of 3.31.0 ares, Survey No.1682/1 to an extent of 1.31 ares and Survey No.1682/2 to an extent of 1.93 ares all at No.24, Meelavattan Part-II Village, Tuticorin Taluk and District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land in bearing Survey Nos.1675, 1680, 1681, 1682/1 and 1682/2 in No.24, Meelavittan Part-II Village, Tuticorin Taluk and District and the said properties were originally belongs to his parents and after their demise, being their son, this petitioner has inherited the properties and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that the said lands were came to the possession and enjoyment of the properties by way of the sale purchase in the year 1955 and later the properties came to be used a salt pan till the year 1974. Till the land was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act.
4.It is the case of the petitioner that the Government for the purpose of acquiring the said land for public purpose to wit for the construction of Tuticorin Major Port and an extensive land to a vast area, but a good portion of the lands including the lands originally belonging to the petitioner was not put into use and the purpose for which the lands came to be acquired by the Government. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said lands neither Tuticorin Port Trust nor the third respondent also have not effectively put the lands for industrial purpose and the lands were abandoned by the Government and consequently, the above lands including the petitioner's lands came to be encroached by the third parties as evident from the revenue records themselves.
5.After the acquisition, on account of the fact that the petitioner and his family came to loose their profession, namely the business in salt pan, the petitioner has to undergo for employment with a private entrepreneur, at a low salary of Rs.1,000/- and for all the years, the petitioner and his family members suffered a lot and also they underwent untold misery. Since, the Government itself has no plan to use this land, they allowed the encroachers to stay on, but no steps have been taken by the Government to evict those encroachers and consequently, the beneficiaries are neither the true owners namely the Government nor the petitioner being the erstwhile owner of the land from whom, the lands were acquired from the petitioner and his family under the guise of the said Act.
6.The petitioner also states that as per Board Standing Order No.90, empowering the Government to return the lands to the original owners subject to the return of the compensation amount paid over to them and also subject to other conditions stipulated therein. Later, such a provision was doubted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the said Act came to be amended by inserting an amendment, by the State Government by way of Section 48-B of the said Act. Section 48-B of the said Act provides that:
?Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases ? Where the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A) and (2) of
Section 23, if any, paid under this Act.?
7.Therefore, citing the above Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act that the petitioner has sent a representation dated 10.04.2000 followed by his earlier reminder dated 04.04.2002, requesting the Government to reassign the said land to the petitioner's family. The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin also recommended for the return of the land to the petitioner and ultimately the first respondent namely the Secretary to Government by his letter dated 31.08.2005 called for a report from the second respondent namely the District Collector, Tuticorin and the steps taken by the District Collector for the removal of the encroachment, but this petitioner has not sure whether any report has been given by the District Collector or not to the first respondent, pursuant to the letter dated 31.08.2005. Later on the petitioner came to know that the Revenue Divisional Officer has sent a report dated 29.05.2006 to the second respondent, pointing out that the land might be required for the Government for its future use, but it is very much significant to note that absolutely there was no reference in the letter dated 29.05.2006 to remove the encroachment and to repossess the land.
8.Apart from this, the report dated 29.05.2006 stated that in view of the implementation of Sethu Samuthra Project and formation of four lanes, and by taking into account the expansion of Tuticorin as an Industrial City that the lands might be required for the future use and such a report on the very face of it is based on no material.
9.Though the petitioner was 70 years old and made several request to the respondents, but till date no reply has been received from the respondents for returning the said land to him. Therefore, he filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid prayer.
10.A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent/ the Chairman and the Managing Director, SIPCOT, this writ petition is not maintainable.
11.The third respondent also stated that during the year 1962 the Government of Tamil Nadu had earlier notified under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) for an extent of 12847.40 acres of land in Mallakkadu, Korampallam and Meelavittan villages for the purpose of formation of new Port Trust and Industrial Development of Tuticorin. Thereafter, the above notification an extent of 2580.63 acres of lands were acquired upto 1966 and handed over the said lands to the Port Trust, Express Highways and Railway sidings etc., leaving a balance area of 10266.77 acres. Due to repeated requests of the land owners whose lands were not actually acquired and because of the stay order granted by this Court, on batch of writ petitions filed during the year 1972-1973 the acquisition of the balance land was kept in abeyance till 1980.
12.The third respondent also stated that pending completion of Land Acquisition Proceedings, for the entire extent of land notified on 07.09.1981 the Government of Tamil Nadu ordered for the transfer of 1157.02 acres of land to SIPCOT for setting up of an Industrial Complex at Tuticorin. As per G.O.Ms.No.1242, Industries Department dated 07.09.1981, the land in Zone-VIII is 380.03 acres and Zone-X is 776.99 acres totally 1157.02 acres of land were allotted to the third respondent.
13.The third respondent also stated that the petitioner's land mentioned above are situated at Meelavittan Part-II Village, but the lands transferred to the third respondent SIPCOT are situated at Meelavittan Part-I Village. Therefore, the lands claimed by the writ petitioner were not vested with the third respondent SIPCOT. In respect of the subject land, the third respondent have nothing to say. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
14.On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, no counter affidavit has been filed.
15.Heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Adithya Vijayarayan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused all the records.
16.Admittedly, the land was acquired from the petitioner's family in the year 1962, but the respondents 1 and 2 have not come forward by producing any document to say that whether the land belongs to the petitioner were used by the respondents, since the third respondent though his counsel specifically stated that the petitioner's land situated in Meelavittan Village (Part-II) has not at all handed over to the third respondent / SIPCOT. Therefore, it is presumes that the land acquired from the petitioner's family still vacant and the third parties were encroached the said land. Therefore, the land acquired from the petitioner has not at all possession of the respondents 1 and 2 / Government.
17.This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases very categorically held that if the lands are not used by the respondents/ Government and the same may be returned to the original owners by receiving the payment of compensation already paid to the previous land owners.
18.Apart from this, as per the Acquisition Act introduced by the Government namely right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As per
Section 24(2), the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deemed lapsing of, in terms of
Section 24(2) of the said Act and the land was passed under Land Acquisition Act 1894, for more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Physical possession of that land was still with the original owners and compensation also not paid to the original owners. It is presumed that the land must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
19.Considering the several cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Karnail Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 206, it is held that ?17.We have carefully gone through the legal submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants with respect to the application filed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the objections raised by the respondents to the same. In our considered view, Respondent 2 GMADA has admitted that the possession of the land in question (i.e. about 102 acres) is with the appellants and the appellants have not received the compensation for the said land being acquired by GMADA. Therefore, the case of Nand Kishore Gupta referred to supra is not applicable to the present case on hand. In fact, the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down in Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, Union of India v. Shiv Raj, Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana, Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn.
23.After referring to the aforesaid decisions with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the view that physical possession of the land belonging to the appellants has neither been taken by the respondents nor compensation paid to them even though the award was passed on 6-8-2007, and more than five years have lapsed prior to date on which the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied in this case for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in terms of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The said legal principle laid down by this Court in Pune Municipal Corpn. and other cases referred to supra with regard to the interpretation of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, with all fours are applicable to the fact situation in respect of the land covered in these appeals for granting the relief as prayed by the appellants in the applications.
24.We have noticed the Gazette of India published by the Ministry of Law and Justice in respect of the "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014", in which a second proviso to
Section 24(2) has been inserted which reads as follows:-
"Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for the purpose shall be excluded."
The abovesaid amendment has come into force w.e.f. 1-1-2015. With due regard to the same, we are of the view that the amendment would not be applicable to the case on hand for the reason that these appeals were pending much prior to the Ordinance and also the applications under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were filed prior to the amendment to
Section 24(2) by the Ordinance and the same were heard and reserved for orders on 28.10.2014 and therefore the Ordinance insofar as insertion of proviso to the above section by way of an amendment is prospective.
27.In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons recorded by us, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellants' land have lapsed.
28. The aforesaid applications are allowed in the abovesaid terms and consequently, the appeals referred to above are also allowed by quashing the land acquisition proceedings notification insofar as the land of the appellants are concerned. No costs.?
20.When the respondents 1 and 2 have not given any particulars of the using of the said land by way of filing counter or producing any documents. It is made clear that the land acquired from the petitioner and his family is still not used by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, as per the Acquisition Act 2013, this petitioner is entitled to get back the said lands from the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary and as per the above Act, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of.
21.In the result:
(a) the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation by narrating the entire above facts to the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the first respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(b) on receipt of the said representation, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's representation under Sections 48(b) and
24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, for return of the land bearing Survey No.1675 to an extent of 3.42.5 ares, Survey No.1680 to an extent of 3.21.0 ares, Survey No.1681 to an extent of 3.31.0 ares, Survey No.1682/1 to an extent of 1.31 ares and Survey No.1682/2 to an extent of 1.93 ares, to the petitioner, by giving personal opportunity to the petitioner;
(c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioner. No costs.
To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
3.The Chairman and the Managing Director, SIPCOT, No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008..