ORDER
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. By this judgement two writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.998 of 1995 and 1035 of 2002 are disposed of.
2. W.P.No.998/1995 is filed by the Puduvai Pradesa Pattali Vivasaya Sangam which is a registered society. It claims to have a membership of about 500 persons who are farmers and agriculturists. In this writ petition, the said Sangam prays for a Writ of Declaration that the entire proceedings under Sec. 4(1) dated 30.1.1984 and under Sec. 6 dated 1.12.86 of the Land Acquisition Act are null and void and illegal in respect of S.No.41/1 corresponding to S.No.141 (or perhaps S.No.144) situated in Ariyankuppam village, Pondicherry and they also seek a further relief of a direction to the respondents to enforce and implement the provisions of Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land )Act in respect of the said land.
3. W.P. No. 1035 of 2002 has been filed by one G. Thiruvarasan who claims to be son of one Govindarasu who was allegedly a tenant in respect of the land bearing R.S. No. 41/1, Old Survey No.144 (or perhaps 141). In this writ petition, the prayer is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the 4th respondent in his proceedings No.8186/DCR/C1/WP dated 14.12.2001 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to declare the continuation of possession of the land bearing RS. No. 41/1, Old Survey No.144 situated at Ariyankuppam village, Pondicherry.
4. The contention raised by the petitioner in w.P.No.1035 of 2002 is that his father was tenant of this land and this land which was tenancy land could not have been acquired by the State Government as it did under the questioned orders. Some short facts will be necessary to understand and appreciate the controversy involved. The aforementioned land belonged to one Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekar and it is the claim of the petitioners that in respect of this land, the provisions of Pondicherry Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) act,1970 (hereinafter called as the Land Reforms Act) were initiated and ultimately a total extent of 13.34.30 hectares were declared as surplus under the said Act. A notification to that effect was published on 26.8.1976. It is claimed by the petitioner that on the said notification being passed, the surplus land ceased to belong to the owner and vested in the Government of Pondicherry and the Government of Pondicherry was under legal duty to dispose of the surplus lands so declared in accordance with the provisions of the said Act particularly under Sec. 61(1)of the Act r/w Sec.24. After determination of the amount of the land so acquired by the Government, it is then pointed out that this land was sought to be acquired by the Government and the award was also passed in respect of the above land.
5. It is reiterated in the first writ petition that perhaps when the provisions o the Land Acquisition Act were initiated, the Government had probably lost sight of the Land Reforms Act and the notification issued there under and as such the entire Land Acquisition proceedings were illegal and void. It is then reiterated that they were cultivating tenants who were the members of the Sangam and once the provisions of the Land Reforms Act had been invoked and notification is issued there under, the Government had to work out distribution of lands under the said Act as per the provisions of the said Act and therefore giving go by to the declaration already made under Section 17 of the Act, taking resort to provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was illegal, improper and without jurisdiction and that therefore the entire proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act viz., Section 4 notification, Section 6 declaration and the award proceedings were ab initio void. This is the main stay of the petitioner in the first writ petition.
6. However, in the second writ petition the affidavit has been sworn in by one G.Thiruvarasan who claims that his father Govindarajan was a tenant in respect of this land and a lease deed was executed in his favour by the erstwhile owner Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekar on 31.08.1968. It is further contended that the petitioner’s father had expired on 7.6.1991 and subsequent to the death, the petitioner was enjoying the said property as cultivating tenant. He being in possession of the land till the date of filing of the writ petition also. He has also relied on the aforementioned notification under Sec.17 r/w Sec.11 of the Land Reforms Act and has made a mention thereto in Para-2 of his Writ Petition. He has also raised a similar contention that the land in his possession was to the extent of 4.31.60 hectares was also included in the subsequent Land Acquisition Proceedings and that in fact, the Land owner had challenged the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act by filing suit O.S.21/79 on the file of the Land Tribunal at Pondicherry. The said Tribunal had decreed the suit by its order dated 30.9.1982 and had set aside the proceedings of the Authorised Officer. Then it is pointed out that aggrieved by the said decree passed by the Tribunal, the Authorised Officer had filed an appeal in A.S.No.22/1983 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and the said appeal stood allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside by the order of the District Judge dated 28.11.1988. According to him, the said Judgement of the Additional District Judge has become final and there was no further appeal or revision against the same. Relying on this he further submits that in total ignorance of the Land Reforms Proceedings, the State Government had issued a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by G.O.Ms.6 dated 30.1.1984 proposing to acquired land which is in possession of the petitioner for public purpose. He then points out that the petitioner’s father filed a writ petition challenging this land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.13594/86. He further points out that at this juncture, the petitioner’s father or the petitioner were not aware of the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act and also the subsequent proceedings by the Additional District Judge and therefore without the knowledge of such pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner’s father challenged the acquisition proceedings on other general and technical grounds in the said writ petition. He then pointed out that the writ petition came to be dismissed by this court on 18.1.1994 and the appeal preferred was also dismissed. He then says in para-3 that in the meantime, the petitioner’s father was asked to submit Form-14 application under Land Reforms Act and therefore came to know about the proceedings initiated under the Land Reforms Act ie., only after filing of the W.P.No.13594/1986 and consequently he made an application before the Authorised Officer on 7.9.89 in Form-14 under Rule 24(2) for renewal of continuance of possession of the land. He further points out that when attempts were made by the Authorised Officer to dispossess the petitioner of the land, he filed W.P.No.11143/1995 before this court to direct the respondent therein to dispose of the petitioner dated 7/9/1989 filed by the father of the petitioner under Rule 24(2). According to him, the writ petition was admitted and the same was disposed of by this court wherein the application dated 7.9.1989 was directed to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. He then submits that thereafter, the 4th respondent passed an order but only on 14.12.2001 rejecting the application dated 7.9.1989 as infructuous. He therefore challenges this order passed by the 4th respondent holding that the said application had become infructuous because of the acquisition proceedings.
7. In the aforementioned order the Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Authorised Officer(Land Reform) Pondicherry has specifically found that Tmt. Padmini Chandrasekaran, was holding lands in excess of the ceiling area and therefore the draft settlement dated 28.06.1976 under Sec. 9 of the Act declaring an extent of 16.40.08 hectares as surplus land and final settlement also came to be published in Sec.11 and notification under sec.17(1) also published declaring 13.34.30 hectares as surplus land. He even makes a reference to the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 30.9.1982 setting aside the proceedings of the Authorised Officer as also the order passed by the first Additional District Judge, Pondicherry dated 28.11.88 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Principal Sub-Judge. He further points out that in the mean while in order to commemorate the great National Poet “Bharathiar”, the Government of Pondicherry had decided to acquire this land under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore had issued a notification under Sec.4(1) dated 30.01.1984 specifying the land in question was needed for public purpose. The it is pointed out that Thiru. D. Govindarasu (the father of the petitioner) claimed to be a tenant in the land in R.S. No. 41/1 filed writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the court on 18.1.1994. It is then pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 26.7.1989. It is further pointed out thereafter the said D. Govindarasu filed the present application dated 7.9.89 in Form 14 under Rule 24(2) before the Authorised Officer. But the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his stand that he was a cultivating tenant. It is then pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken over the possession of the land under question on 25.11.1994 and the land was also handed over to the Education Department, Pondicherry on the same day. It is then pointed out that the present petitioner G.Thiruvarasan filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11143/95 for getting the said application dated 7.9.1989 decided upon. The Authorised Officer in his order points out that the said application dated 7.9.89 was absolutely barred by time as in fact such application as per Rule 24 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land, compensation for and Disposal of Surplus Land)Rules 1975, shall be made within one month from the date of publication of the notification under sub section (1) of section 17 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973. He then pointed out that the said application came to be made for the first time after thirteen years by the said D. Govindarasu. It is thereafter pointed out that the said D. Govindarasu had mentioned an oral agreement from the year 1958 to 1968 and as per the lease agreement from 1968 onwards and on request and at direction to produce the lease deed, a copy of the registered lease deed dated 31.08.1968 was produced. However, that lease deed showed that the lease was for a period of 2 years subject to the condition of payment of Rs.3,000/- p.a. as rent and 14 bags of paddy for the lease period. However, there was nothing on record to state that the lease deed was lateron renewed for a further period after its expiry on 31.08.1970. It is then pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance to the Land Acquisition Proceedings had already taken possession of the land in question on 25.11.1994 and therefore the petition filed under Rule 24(6) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,1973 had become infructuous. It is mainly on this ground the aforementioned application dated 7.9.89 is held to be infructuous.
8. In so far as both these petitions are concerned, arguments were made by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel. He points out that the concerned officer had failed to properly appreciate the effects of the various provisions of the Land Reform Act and had also failed to note that even before the Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated, the proceedings under the Land Reform Act had commenced and notification also came to be issued declaring the land as surplus land. He then points out that the effect of those notifications was that there could be no land acquisition proceedings and if any proceedings were taken during the pendency they could not have been to the prejudice of the petitioner’s father who continued to be in possession thereof as also the case of the petitioner who continued to be in possession of the lands after his demise.
9. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, the contention of Mr. Gandhi as also the learned counsel for the other petitioner is that the whole exercise of the acqui of land was completely barred because of the notifications having been published under the Land Reforms Act. I have seen the whole Act. I was taken through the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. But I do not find anything nor any section was pointed out to substantiate that the land covered under the notification cannot be acquired by the Government. Learned counsel points out that there would be a duty on the part of the State Government to distribute the land amongst the tenants. That may be so but that the said land even if liable to be distributed to the tenants can certainly be acquired for any public purpose . After all the land which is distributed to the tenants who are not cultivating tenants cannot partake the character of the land in the hands of a statutory tenant so as to be immune. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act or as the case may be, in the Land Reforms Act to suggest that the acquisition of such land for the public purpose would be barred in any manner. The only question will be as to who gets the compensation.
10. During the debate, it was argued that the land acquisition proceedings had gone right upto the Supreme Court and the petitioner in W.P.No.1035 was also on record in those proceedings and the land acquisition proceedings were finalised. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court was filed by none else by the petitioner in W.P.No.1035 himself. It is also pointed out in the counter that the land was acquired by the Government for promotion of Bharathi Mani Mandapam a public purpose and therefore the land came to be acquired. It has to be therefore observed that merely because the lands were covered and declared under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, such declaration would not come as an embargo against the Government from acquisition if the said lands were specifically required for the public purpose. In so far as the legality of the acquisition proceedings is concerned, there is nothing in the said Land Reforms Act or even in the Land Acquisition Act that such land could not be acquired. Those proceedings having attained their finality in 1994 itself, after possession was already taken over by the Government and handed over to the Education Department of the Pondicherry Governmnet, there would really remain nothing excepting the claim for compensation under the Land Acquisition Proceedings.
11. Further it was told during the debate that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.1035 has filed an appeal in respect of the compensation with regard to the land in question which was acquired by the State Government. I will therefore not go into the question as to whether the writ petitioner has any locus or any claim for compensation as the challenge in this writ petition is only to the limited question to see as to whether the petitioner in W.P.No.1035 can be restored to the possession of the land in question and also the so called members of the so called ‘Sangam’ can be re-inducted in the land. Ultimately, the answer to both these questions will have to be in the negative. The petitioner in W.P.No.1035 had stepped into the shoes of his father who had challenged the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Therefore, he cannot turn back and challenge the said proceedings under the guise of getting application dated 7.9.89 made by his father decided. In fact, there remains nothing in that application and it is correctly decided to be barred by limitation and infructuous also. After all there would remain nothing if the possession is taken in land acquisition proceedings which have also become final. The ‘lis’ between the Government and the father of the petitioner herein was completed by the orders of this court in the writ petition and confirmed in the writ appeal W.A.No.500/94 as also by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore he cannot question the land acquisition proceedings at all.
12. In so far as the writ petitioner ‘Sangam’ in the other writ petition is concerned, they also cannot challenge the land acquisition proceedings since merely on the ground that the members of that Sangam were erstwhile tenants. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that any of them
was a tenant at all or was in possession of the concerned land. At any rate, once the possession is taken, there would be no question of their being restored to possession or reinstated as tenants in respect of the lands in question. Therefore, the ‘Sangam’ also cannot challenge the land acquisition proceedings which have already attained finality by going right upto the Supreme Court. In short, both these writ petitions are without any substance and are liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Consequently WMP.Nos.1533&15198/1995 are closed.
13. However, before parting it must be stated that the impugned order in W.P.No.1035 is correct in so far as it takes notice to the fact that the whole issue is not involved on the basis of the application made by Govindarasu dated 7.9.89 has become infructuous, none of the land having been acquired and taken possession of by the State Government. That order is concerned, it is needless to mention that it would be for the petitioner in W.P.No.1035 to get his rights decided upon in the appeal which is pending at his instance on the question of compensation in the acquisition proceedings. This order cannot be deemed to be restricted to the question of the validity of the Land Acquisition Proceedings alone.