V. KANNAIYAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents viz., (1) to cancel the sub-divisions effected as S.No.329/2A and 329/2B in respect of Old S.No.329/2, Yethappur Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Village, Salem District; (2) to cancel the registration of S.No.329/2B as Adi Dravidar Natham in the revenue records ; (3) to register the land in the name of the petitioners and to issue patta to the entire extent of the land in S.No.329/2 as it stood before the sub-division.

(2.) The short facts of the petitioners' case is that : "? The first petitioner and his wife Banumathi, who is now dead, have separately purchased an extent of 1.44 acres and 83 cents respectively in S.No.329/2 in Yethapur village. "? Be that as it may, the first respondent/the District Collector had notified an extent of 1.44 acres for acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, for providing house-sites to the Adi-Dravidar of Yethapur Village. On acquisition, S.No:329/2 was sub-divided into S.No.329/2A and S.No.329/2B, and acquired portion came to be assigned S.No.329/2B, and was classified as Adi-Dravidar Natham. This, according to the petitioners was done without notice to them. "This acquisition was challenged by the first petitioner and his wife in W.P.No.12668 of 1996 and W.P.No.12669 of 1996, and both the writ petitions came to be allowed, and the acquisition was quashed. This led to the Government preferring appeals in W.A.No.211 and W.A.No.212 of 2005. Both the appeals were dismissed by this Court Vide order dated 20.03.2009. The resulting consequence was that all the efforts to acquire the land of the first petitioner and his wife came to a naught. "The petitioners herein remain in possession of the said properties and that necessary tax and rates payable to the local body is being paid. While so, sometime in 2016, when the first petitioner and his wife proposed to put up a construction inter alia in S.No.329/2, that was objected to by the intended beneficiaries of the original acquisition, and hence, a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.189/2016 was filed by the first petitioner and his wife, restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the entire 4.43 acres in S.Nos.329/2, 331/2 and 330/4. In that suit, the plaintiffs (the first petitioner and his wife) had filed I.A.No.976/2016 for an order of interim injunction and this came to be erroneously dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Attur, on the ground that the land vests with the Government as Adi Dravidar Natham.

(3.) Heard Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.