K ELANGOVAN Vs. R BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is one of the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings initiated under TN Act 31/1978 but not party to the writ petition. THE facts remains undisputed are that the land in question originally belonged to the father of the writ petitioner and the same was sought to be acquired for Harijin welfare scheme and acquisition proceedings was initiated award was passed and possession was taken over by the Government all during 1981.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, some of the land owners including the writ petitioner father filed batch of writ petitions and the writ petitioner father R.Krishnasamy filed WP.No.3958 of 1981 questioning the vires of Act.31/1978 and to quash the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act as illegal and without jurisdiction and the batch of writ petitions are allowed by order dated 25.11.1981 by the Division Bench of this Court and on the strength of the order. The Act was struck down and all acquisition proceedings taken under the Act stood nullified. Aggrieved against the same, the state Government filed appeal before the Supreme Court, in the meanwhile compensation award was passed and land owners received the compensation. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court the father of the writ petitioner filed WP.No.5182 of 1989 for writ of mandamus for forbearing the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land except under due process of law and the writ petition was allowed, however, without prejudice to the right of the appellants/state to pursue the appeal before the Supreme Court and to recover any money which is paid to the land owners as compensation. The order of the learned single judge was challenged by the official respondents in W.A.No.1491 of 1991 and the Division Bench of this court is by order dated 06.01.1992 confirmed the relief granted and the observation made by the learned single judge. Similar writ petitions filed by A.Krishnamoorthy in WP.No.5277 of 1989 and one H.Gopal in WP.No.5278 of 1989 are also allowed. IN the meanwhile, the appeal filed against the Division Bench order of our High Court striking down Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 is disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 23.11.1994 thereby up holding the validity of the Act except Section 11(1) in so far as they provide for payment of compensation amount in installments which is held to be ultra vires of the Constitution and the same is also reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 in State of Tamil Nadu and others V. Ananthi Ammal and others.

(3.) DESPITE the judgment passed by the Supreme Court upholding the vires of Act 31/1978 K.Ramamurthy son of Krishnasamy who was the original owner of the property in question approached the Special officer Land Acquisition for reallotment of the lands and for restoring the entries in the revenue records and such claim is admittedly made on the strength of the order made in WA.No.1491 of 1991 confirming the order made in WP.No.5182 of 1989 and obtained an order in his favour but the authority concerned failed to give effect to the order for reallotment of lands and for restoring the entries in relevant revenue records and for such failure the applicant came forward with WP.No.8906 of 2010 for issue of writ of mandamus for directing the 3rd respondent to transfer the land to an extent of 52.5 cents comprised in S.No.75/6A of Mettusakarakuppam Village, Thirupattur Taluk,, Vellore District and to restore the entries in patta, chitta and adangal and other connected revenue records in the name of the petitioner as per the order of the Special Tahsildar (ADW) Thirupattur, Vellore District.