IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.12.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN Writ Appeal No.971 of 2002 T.Selvambal .. Appellant Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Fort St. George Madras 9. 2. The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Vridhachalam. .. Respondents ----- Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2002 in W.P.No.20235 of 1994. ----- For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C. For Mr.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl.A.G. Assisted by Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. ----- J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.)
The matter relates to land acquisition. The writ petition against the land acquisition proceedings having been dismissed by order dated 25.2.2002 in W.P.No.20235 of 1994 by the learned Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
2. Originally, the land of an extent of 0.43.5 hectares in R.S.No.52/1 and 0.23.5 hectares in R.S.No.52/3A in Goodalur Village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District belongs to the appellant’s father and after his demise on 14.12.1986, the appellant is in enjoyment of the land. The first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 3.12.1992, by which, it was informed that the aforesaid lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of allotting house sites to Adi Dravidars of Goodalur village. Though the father of the appellant died in the year 1986, the notification was issued in the name of her father. The appellant submitted her objection on 7.5.1993. However, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 9.2.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition, in which, though the interim order of stay was passed, the authorities proceeded further and passed an award on 30.12.1994.
3. The only plea taken by the appellant is that the Special Act, viz. Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31 of 1978) having come into force and in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal [AIR 1995 SC 2114], the award passed after 22.11.1994, pursuant to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be upheld.
4. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, while not disputing the facts as stated above, submitted that in spite of the order of stay passed by this Court, the respondents proceeded and passed the award on 30.12.1994, i.e. after the cut off date, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananthi Ammal (supra).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the contentions.
6. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal [AIR 1995 SC 2114], the Supreme Court has observed as under:
“Section 20 of the said Act states that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, save as expressly provided in the said Act, shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purpose specified in S.4(1) and such land shall be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, S.22 makes the provisions of the said Act applicable also to cases in which proceedings have been started before the commencement of the said Act under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Harijan Welfare Schemes, provided that no awards have been made under the Land Acquisition Act. We see no unreasonableness in this provision, particularly having regard to the terms of S.20. We must, however, take into account the fact that the judgment under appeal striking down the said Act was delivered as far as back as September, 1981, and no stay thereof was obtained from this Court. It is likely, therefore, that in cases where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had already been started to acquire lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, they might have been revived and completed in the interregnum. We, therefore, make it clear that the provisions of S.22 shall have no effect in such cases where awards have been made.”
7. The proceedings, in the case of the appellant, having been originally initiated under the Land Acquisition Act and award having been passed on 30.12.1994, i.e. after the cut off date, viz. November 1994, we hold that the case of the appellant is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court aforesaid. We, accordingly, set aside the proceedings, as was initiated against the appellant. However, this order shall not stand in the way of the respondent State to act in accordance with law.
The writ appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to costs. WAMP No.1880 of 2008 is closed.
Index : Yes (S.J.M.J.) (V.D.P.J.) Internet : Yes 2.12.2008. kpl S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J, AND V.DHANAPALAN, J. (kpl) W.A.No.971 of 2002. 2.12.2008.