K.N. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. MUTHUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to de-notify the Appellant's lands in Survey No.666/2B measuring 1.36.0 Hectares at Sappanipatti village, Krishnagiri Taluk.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he is the Owner of the subject lands and the statutory Respondents proposed to acquire the same for providing house sites to Harijans under the Harijans Welfare Scheme and Sec. 4(1) Land Acquisition Notification was issued on 27/11/1997, despite objections raised by several Landowners, who would be affected by the proposed acquisition. The Petitioner had challenged the proceedings on the ground that though 50 persons were identified to be beneficiaries under the Harijans Welfare Scheme, on verification, the Appellant was shocked to note that there were only 62 Adi Dravidar families residing in the village covered under the Scheme and on the contrary, the allotment was given to the strangers, women and other persons, who were not entitled to the benefit of patta or allotment under the Adi Dravidar Scheme. It is also stated by the Petitioner that he gave a representation to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, who in turn directed the District Revenue Officer to take action on the Appellant's Letter, dtd. 23/4/2003. It is the further case of the Appellant that the lands are fertile lands with Mango and Coconut tress and no Compensation was also paid for the proposed acquisition. Contending that the Appellant continued to be in possession, carrying on agricultural operations and also in view of the materials unearthed by him that even though only 62 Adi Dravidar families had been residing, acquisition was made for the benefit of more than 80 persons and the Appellant's lands were also not included. Further, it is also the specific case of the Appellant that in respect of two other Landowners, who had in fact purchased from the Appellant's family, they had filed a Writ Petition and from the same, it is clear that the acquisition is being sought for the very same beneficiaries, which is an abuse of the authority by Statutory Respondent, besides also being an arbitrary exercise of power by administration.

(3.) The Special Thasildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the acquisition proceedings were in order and in accordance with law. The Appellant chose to challenge the proceedings after a lapse of 12 years and it is not correct to state that the objections were given by Landowners at the time of proposed acquisition. Further he would state that the Appellant had earlier challenged the Acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.1037 of 1998 and the same was dismissed on 10/7/2000 and even the Writ Appeal in W.A. No.1584 of 2000, came to be dismissed on 7/8/2001. The Writ Petition filed by the other Landowner, which was refereed to by the Appellant in W.P. No.6713 of 2003 was also dismissed on 2/8/2010. Further, according to the Second Respondent, the Adi Dravidars from the village are very poor and homeless and only to provide them with free house sites, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and the same has also been completed 12 years back and therefore, there is no excess land available for de-notifying the Appellant's lands.