IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:02-4-2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.17551 of 1998 ..... Neyveli Lignite Corporation Nilam Veedu Kodutha Kuzhampu Paniyalargal Nala Sangam rep. By its Secretary. .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation, rep. By its Chairman Neyveli, Cuddalore District. 2. The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition (LA) Neyveli 1. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For respondents : Mr.N.A.K.Sharma for R.1 Mrs.D.Geetha,AGP for R.2 .. ORDER
This writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents from taking possession of the lands of the members of the petitioner Sangam without complying with arrangement dated 13.10.1997.
2. The writ petitioner Sangam was started to protect the rights of the persons who had handed over the lands to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (in short, “NLC”), so as to enable it to develop its second stage of excavation. According to the petitioner Sangam, its members were called upon to receive the sums awarded for their lands acquired and to vacate and hand over the sites for the excavation. The case of the petitioner Sangam is that an understanding was reached between its members and the respondents, by which the first respondent has agreed,
(i) that the Villagers will form a society for the purpose of applying for tenders so as to give employment to the farmers who had given up their lands;
(ii) that the persons will be given employment initially as temporary workers and thereafter they will be absorbed permanently on seniority basis;
(iii) that alternate sites would be provided to the land owners; and
(iv) that land owners would then voluntarily hand over the lands to the NLC.
2(a). It is the further case of the petitioner Sangam that in 1957, the village occupied by its members was acquired for Phase-I of the first respondent’s project and the occupants were neither granted alternate sites, nor they were given employment. It was in those circumstances, the above said arrangement was entered when the acquisition for the second phase was initiated. In spite of the arrangement entered, even after one year from the date of promise, the members of the petitioner Sangam have not been granted any of the opportunities as per the arrangement, and in spite of the fact that the members of the petitioner Sangam are ready and willing to hand over the lands, the arrangement is not being fulfilled.
2(b). It is also the case of the petitioner Sangam that in the light of its members giving up their rights to enhanced compensation, the benefits by way of employment and alternate sites were agreed. However, the respondents have issued notice to them to vacate and hand over possession within 7 days from 10.10.1998. Since the respondents are not interested in fulfilling the arrangement, the petitioner’s Sangam has filed the present writ petition for direction as stated above.
3. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. The first respondent has raised a question regarding maintainability of the writ petition and according to the first respondent, there is no arrangement in respect of Survey Nos.87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 96 and 97 of Pudu Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk. The lands were acquired by the first respondent Corporation under the Land Acquisition Act and possession has been taken over at various times in 1994 and the Corporation is in possession of the said lands utilised the same for mining and other purposes. The petitioner Sangam itself has no locus standi to file the writ petition and the Corporation understands that the registration of petitioner Sangam itself was suspended. It is also stated that the land acquisition proceedings have been completed by following the procedure and the compensation as per the Act has been disbursed in the normal course to all the occupants, including the members of the petitioner Sangam. While stating that the Corporation is always for rehabilitation of persons ousted, there is no written or oral arrangement as claimed in the writ petition in respect of Pudu Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk or with respect to any other village.
3(a). The arrangement as stated in the writ petition is denied. It is also specifically stated that out of 129 individuals listed in the list annexed to the petitioner’s typed set of papers, based on the eligibility and satisfaction of stipulated conditions, alternate sites have been provided to fifty individuals. As far as the eligibility to alternate house sites is concerned, the persons who have surrendered houses in which they were living are eligible and it is also subject to the production of proof of having resided in the acquired houses for not less than five years prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
3(b). It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit that one Kuppusamy, father of the deponent of the writ petition, viz., V.K.Ravi, himself being an awardee, sought for increased compensation in LAOP.No.52 of 2001, which finally came to be settled through Lok Adalat on 13.08.2004, whereby the said Kuppusamy was paid an additional sum of Rs.1,24,205/-. Likewise, the other awardees also availed themselves the benefit of statutory provisions by seeking increased compensation. It is also stated that as regards post 1989 Awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act, a fresh rehabilitation plan has been finalised and approved by the Tamil Nadu Government. It is also stated that the deponent of the affidavit V.K.Ravi, himself had applied for and was granted licence to run a side shop receiving preferential treatment as a land oustee.
4. The writ petitioner Sangam, which has chosen to file this affidavit has given the list of members consisting of 129. Even though the petitioner Sangam has chosen to file the writ petition on the basis of an arrangement stated to have been entered, there are absolutely no particulars about the date of such arrangement and the persons who have signed and the sanctity of the arrangement entered. However, during the course of argument, a Xerox copy of the proceedings taken in the Conciliation Meeting (rkhjhdf; Tl;lk;) stated to have taken place on 13.10.1997, signed by nearly three persons on behalf of the persons given the lands and two persons on behalf of NLC in the presence of the District Welfare Officer, was filed.
5. It is not in dispute that in respect of the lands which are stated to be in possession of 129 persons annexed in the typed set of papers filed by the writ petitioner Sangam have been acquired much earlier under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and the compensation have been received by them. However, the case of the petitioner Sangam is that its members are in possession, and based on the above said arrangement the first respondent has agreed to provide for alternate sites or employment and so on. Merely because the said arrangement contains a Clause that till alternate sites are given or employment is provided to the awardees, they are entitled to retain possession of the property. In the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that in respect of some of survey numbers, viz., S.Nos.87,88,89,91,93,96 and 97 of Pudu Illavarasanpattu of Virudhachalam Taluk, the respondents have taken possession of the same and in fact mining operation is going on.
6. In any event, when acquisition proceedings are completed and compensation has been paid and in some of the cases it is stated that the occupants have even approached the Court by filing LAOPs., for enhanced compensation and the father of the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has also received such enhanced compensation, it does not mean that the occupants should remain in possession even after the acquisition proceedings are over. If the members of the petitioner Sangam are entitled for any such benefit as per the arrangement stated above, it is open to them to approach the appropriate authority or forum for the purpose of enforcing their right, and that does not empower the owners to continue to be in possession, when their properties have already been acquired under due process of law and necessary compensation has been paid.
7. It is well settled that the existence of right of individual party is a foundation for him to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev and other (AIR 1964 SC 685). It is also held that only affected persons have right to approach the Court in cases where the individual rights are involved in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2001 SC 1739). In Tamilaga Asiriyar Kootani rep. By the General Secretary V.Annamali vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, School Education and others (2005 (3) MLJ 252), a Division Bench of this Court has also held that the Association has no locus standi to file such a writ petition. In the present case even assuming otherwise that the members of the petitioner Sangam are entitled to any benefits, the Sangam has no locus standi to file the writ petition at all. Further, the affidavit does not contain any particulars and even the date of arrangement is not mentioned except a Xerox copy of the proceedings which has been produced before this Court at the time of argument, the enforceability of which has to be decided not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is clear from the counter affidavit that the respondent Corporation is having a rehabilitation scheme, under which it is, in fact, providing alternate sites or employment. It is also made clear that out of 129 members stated in the annexure filed along with the writ petition, 50 persons have been given alternate sites and the respondents have also stipulated a Scheme for the purpose of giving alternate sites with a condition that the applicants must prove that they had been in possession of such houses acquired for not less than five years, which is intended for the purpose of avoiding ineligible persons from getting the alternate sites. Further, the respondents in the typed set of papers have also produced various awards of contract given to the awardees, whose lands have been acquired.
9. In view of the categoric stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed; accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
kh
To
1. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
rep. By its Chairman
Neyveli, Cuddalore District.
2. The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition (LA)
Neyveli 1.