The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned letter passed by the first respondent, vide Let.No.7882/PNa2/2003-30, dated 13.09.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-convey the land to an extent of 3.11 acres in Old Survey No.127 and New Survey No.36/2, Athimanjeri Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District, to the petitioners.
2. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that the property in question belongs to the petitioners and that the land acquisition proceedings were approved, vide G.O.(Ms).No.777, Social Welfare (BC-III) Department, dated 01.03.1982 and the land was acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to Boyers, Navidhars and Dhobis. The award was passed on 25.03.1982. Admittedly, no compensation had been paid to the petitioners. The purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, was not given effect to for more than five years and that the request for re-conveyance of the land was rejected 13.09.2007 by the first respondent, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition.
3. According to the petitioners, when the land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, and when admittedly, the same has not been utilised for more than five years and no compensation also has been paid, the petitioners are entitled to re-conveyance of the land, as the possession has not been taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no bar for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, but however, they have to comply with the mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act of the land acquisition, i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. The respondents submitted that the land had been acquired for providing house-sites as stated above, and that the compensation had been deposited in the Court, and as the compensation amount has not been accepted and returned to the Government, the same has been deposited in the Revenue deposit. However, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents admitted that the land has not been acquired for more than five years. However, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the land is required for specific purpose and if re-conveyance sought for is accepted, the object of the acquisition itself would be defeated, and that the land could be utilised for other beneficiaries and the other Government purpose(s). It is further stated in the counter that there are several representations with regard to the allotment of house-sites for persons who are without houses. The contention of the petitioners that there is mala-fide intention with unreasonableness, is incorrect, and it is the duty of the Government to redress the grievance of the poorest among the poor and the land is required for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is reiterated in the counter affidavit that the land acquisition officer has drawn an amount of Rs.28,612/-, which was deposited in the Sub-Court concerned, however, in view of the query raised, the money was deposited in the Government account.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the land in question was acquired, which was approved, vide proceedings issued in the said G.O. of the year 1982 after following all formalities. But however, the land has not been utilised for a period of five years for which the same was acquired. Though there is prima-facie contention that there was an attempt made by the Government to deposit the compensation in the Court, as that was not accepted, the same has been deposited in the Government Treasury. Admittedly, the Revenue deposit will come only after the amount is tendered to the affected person and in case that was refused, they can deposit in the Court concerned. There is no iota of evidence to show that the said amount has been tendered to the petitioners which is stated to have been refused by them.
8. Apart from the above aspects, after rejection of the request of the petitioners with regard to re-conveyance on 13.09.2007, there is proceedings, dated 18.09.2007 issued by the first respondent to the third petitioner herein, regarding the query raised under the Right to Information Act, in which, the first respondent has enclosed the relevant letters, of which, the letter of the second respondent had been enclosed therein, and the relevant portion of the letter of the second respondent enclosed therein, reads as follows:
@ //// ,e;neh;tpy; mthh;L Miz 25/03/1982 md;W tH';fg;gl;l nghjpYk; nkw;fz;l ePjpkd;w tHf;Ffspd; fhuzkhf epyj;jpid vLj;J rk;ge;jg;g;ll 54 gadhspfSf;F tPl;Lkidg;gl;lh cldoahf tH';fpl rhj;jpag;gltpy;iy/ vdnt. mthh;L nghl;l jpdj;jpypUe;J ehsJ njjp tiu epy chpikahsh;fspd; mDgtj;jpnyna ,g;g[yk; ,Ue;jpl Toa NH;epiy Vw;gl neh;e;Js;sJ/ nkYk; ,t;tHf;Ffspd; fhuzkhf ,e;epy vLg;g[ bjhlh;ghf fpuhk kw;Wk; tl;l fzf;Ffspy; ,g;g[yj;jpd; tifg;ghl;oid khw;wk; bra;ag;glhj NH;epiy Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,jw;fpilapy; ,g;g[yj;jpy; tPl;Lkid tH';fpl cj;njrpj;Js;s gadhspfs; tPl;Lkid j';fSf;F njitapy;iy vd;Wk; bfhj;jFg;gk; fpuhkj;jpy; g[y vz;/221-2-J/1y; tPl;Lkidg;gl;lh tH';fpl ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; tpz;zg;gpj;Jf; bfhz;Ls;sdh;/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l g[yk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;nlhh; trpf;Fk; FoapUg;g[ gFjpapypUe;J bjhiytpy; cs;sikahy; mj;jpkh";nrhp fpuhkj;jpd; g[y vz; 36-2 tp!;jpuzk; 3/11 Vf;fh; (126/00 bcwf;nlh;) 54 gp/g/ tFg;gpdUf;F tPl;Lkidg;gl;lh tH';fpl epy vLg;g[ bra;j nghjpYk;. rk;ke;jg;gl;l gadhspfs; ,g;g[yj;jpy; tPl;Lkid gl;lh j';fSf;F ntz;oajpy;iy vd;W bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapYk; jw;nghJ ,g;g[yj;jpy; tPl;Lkidg;gl;lh tH';fg;glhj epiyik Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ /// //// ,j;Jld; nkw;fz;l epy vLg;g[ tpsk;gy; mwpf;ifapid uj;J bra;a tiut[ mwpf;iffs; ,j;Jld; mDg;gpitf;fg;gLfpd;wd/ vdnt. ,e;neh;tpy; epy vLg;g[ eltof;ifapid tpyf;fpf; bfhs;st[k; kw;Wk; nkw;fz;l tiut[ mwpf;iffis jkpH;ehL muR ,jHpy; gpuRuk; bra;jplt[k; Mizfs; tH';FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ (xk;)/ khtl;l Ml;rpah;
jpUts;S:h; @
9. Admittedly, it has been categorically stated by the District Collector/second respondent in the above extracted portion that the land is not required and that the acquisition proceedings can be recalled and the same could be also published in the Government Gazette. As there is specific statement by the District Collector and that the land has not been acquired within a period of five years for the purpose for which it has been acquired, the contention of the respondents in the counter that the land is required for a different purpose, in order to utilise the same to the landless poor, cannot be accepted.
10. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent is interfered with, more particularly, in the light of the above extracted communication of the District Collector, as enclosed in the first respondent's letter dated 18.09.2007, and accordingly, the land shall be re-conveyed to the petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these observations and direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.09.2017 Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/no cs To
1. The Secretary to Government, Backward and Most Backward and Minority Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office Building, Nagalapuram Road, Tiruttanai-631 209.
4. The Special Officer, Adi Dravida Welfare, RDO Office Building, Tiruttani-631 209.
5. The Tahsildhar, Taluk Office, Pallipattu Post, Tiruvallur Dt.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J cs W.P.No.14055 of 2015 20.09.2017