V VELLAIYAN Vs. COLLECTOR CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was assigned with a land in S.No.34/1, having an extent of 2.75 acres at Mummudicholagan Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, by the Government of Tamil Nadu in old patta No.310, New No.309. After the assignment, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by cultivating the same and paying the kist for all these years. Whileso, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken steps to acquire the lands during the year 1990 by issuing 4(1) notification published on 04.04.1990 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, followed by 5-A enquiry held on 28.06.1990 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After acquiring the petitioner's land, the same have been developed for mining activities by the third respondent-Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Similarly, the respondents have also acquired large extent of lands in R.S.Nos.6/1, 6/3, 6/4, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8, 6/9, 6/11, 6/12, 6/13, 6/18, 6/19, 6/20, as per the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.1126/2003, dated 23.03.2000, for the reason that the above said lands were also located within 400 meters of the petitioner's land. Besides, the third respondents have acquired a huge extent of 91 hectares of land located in Melpappanapattu Village, which is within 1 k.m. and other lands in Seplanatham, that are located within 2 kms. and the lands in Periyakurichi located within 3 kms from the petitioner's land were also acquired and the compensation amount were also paid by the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 05.06.1998. When the respondents have paid the compensation to all other lands, but only in the case of the petitioner, though they have acquired the lands, till now, no compensation was paid. Therefore, the petitioner made number of representations demanding payment of compensation, but no reply whatsoever was sent by the respondents. However, the petitioner sent two more representations dated 06.01.1995 and 25.10.1999 to the first respondents with a copy to the second respondent and various authorities including the Home Minister. Yet, again, no response came from any one of them. As a result, the petitioner, left with no other option, has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the land was assigned with the petitioner by assignment order No.A4/7708/92, admittedly, he became the owner of the land in respect of Survey No.34/1, therefore, the respondents have to pay the payment of compensation for the land they have acquired from the petitioner. Secondly, there was no proper order passed by the respondents at any point of time seeking to cancel the petitioner assignment, followed by any enquiry. On that basis, it was contended by that since the land in question has become the petitioner's land, the respondents, without issuing any notice or holding enquiry, cannot take back the land without paying the compensation.

(3.) IN his further submission, he has also relied upon yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. K.S.Ramachandra Rao and Others (AIR 1992 SC 2224) for a preposition that even though the land is assigned in favour of an assignee with a condition that no compensation would be paid if the land is required for public purpose as notified in the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, the parties are entitled for payment of compensation. With the aforesaid submissions and decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition.