High Court Madras High Court

Govindasamy vs The Collector Of Dharmapuri on 7 August, 2002

Madras High Court
Govindasamy vs The Collector Of Dharmapuri on 7 August, 2002
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07/08/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM

WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 1996
AND
W.M.P.NO.3241 OF 1996

Govindasamy                                            ...  Petitioner

Vs.

The Collector of Dharmapuri
District, Dharmapuri.                   ...  Respondent.

                        Petition under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.

For petitioner :  Mr.  V.Sankara Subramanian

For respondent :  Mr.  S.Kandaswamy,
                Special Government Pleader

:O R D E R

Aggrieved by the Notification issued under Section
4(1) of Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1973 published in the District
Gazette dated 12.10.1995 relating to acquisition of land in Survey No.57/3 of
Chinnamatarapalli Vaillage, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, the
petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various
grounds.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here
under:- According to him, he is physically handicapped with blindness in one
eye and deafness and being the owner of about 5 acres of land in Survey
No.57/3, Chinnamittarapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. He is depending upon
the agricultural income from the said land. An extent of 1.48.0 hectare of
land was sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for providing
house sites to houseless Adidravidars. Initiallay, notification under Section
4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) was published in the Gazette on
12.01.1994 in Dailies on 13.01.1994 and the substance was also published in
Village on 10.02.1994. The petitioner appeared for Section 5-A enquiry before
the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Krishnagiri and objected to the acquisition
proceedings on the ground that he is physically handicapped and solely
depending upon the agricultural income. He also donated his land in Survey
No.57/3 measuring 7,200 sq.ft. to the Government for the purpose of
constructing Government Health Sub-Centre in the Village by a registered
document dated 16.11.1982 and another piece of land measuring 3 cents in the
same Survey number to the Government for the purpose of constructing a
Panchayat Office by a document dated 17.09.1993. While so, after the judgment
of the Supreme Court upholding the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act in short) the
Government of Tamil Nadu has caused publication of Section 4(1) notification
in the District Gazette, Dharmapuri dated 12.10.1995, which is impugned in
this writ petition. At this stage, questioning the same, the petitioner has
filed the above writ petition.

3. Pursuant to the notice, the District Collector,
Dharmapuri has filed counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the
petitioner. It is stated that though the acquisition was initially under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), subsequent to the decision of the
Supreme Court, the said acquisition proceeding was continued by invoking the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Act. The respondent is fully justified in continuing
the same and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as
learned Special Government Pleader for respondent.

5. There is no dispute that in view of the decision
of the Supreme Court upholding the validity of Tamil Nadu Act, 31 of 1978 and
in the light of the fact that the respondent had initiated acquisition
proceedings under the Central Act and award was not passed on the date of the
order of the Supreme Court, the respondent is well within his power to
continue the acquisition proceedings by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Act
. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he is physically
handicapped with blindness in one eye and deafness. The case of blindness and
deafness was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer even at the
time of enquiry under Section 5-A under Central Act. Further at the relevant
time, the petitioner was aged about 70 years. Now according to the counsel,
the petitioner is aged about 76 years. In the affidavit, apart from the above
aspect, the petitioner has also highlighted the donations made by him to the
Government for the purpose of construction of Government Health Sub-Centre and
Panchayat office. All the details such as extent of land, survey number,
document number, date of registration, etc. find a place in page 5 of the
affidavit. As a matter of fact, in the counter affidavit, the respondent has
admitted the fact that at the relevant time the petitioner was aged about 70
years with defective eye and deaf ears (vide para 6 of the counter affidavit).

6. Apart from the above details, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the proceedings of
the District Collector in e/ f/ vz;. 56175- 2000- j 3 ehs; 21/12/2000 wherein
the beneficiaries in this writ petition were given house site pattas. By
pointing out the proceedings of the District Collector, it is contended that
in view of the order dated 21.12.2000, the beneficiaries for whom the land in
question was sought to be acquired may not be required at this stage.

7. All these materials have not been properly
considered by the respondent. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent
Collector, Dharmapuri to consider the objections/grievances of the petitioner
regarding his age, physical incapacity, being deaf and blindness, donation of
his land in two occasions for public purpose as well as the subsequent
proceedings of the Collector dated 21.12.2000 in e/ f/ vz;. 5 6175- 2000- j 3
assigning some other land to the beneficiaries and pass fresh orders and
communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. In view of the fact that this Court granted stay
of the impugned proceedings in W.M.P.No.3241 of 1996 even on 23.02.1996 and
the same is in force all along, the same order shall continue till final
decision being taken by the Collector, Dharmapuri as mentioned above. The
writ petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.

P.SATHASIVAM.J,
07.08.2002

Index:Yes
Internet: Yes.

sbi
To
The Collector of Dharmapuri
District, Dharmapuri.

W.P.NO.2096 OF 1996