P. SUBRAMANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 11241/2010/Ka2 and to consequently direct the respondents to change the revenue records by making necessary entry by including the petitioner's name and by deleting the classification as Natham land in S.F. No. 33/1 (Old Survey No. 36 -A) to an extent of 1.36 acres of land (0.50.0 hectares) in Dhalavaipattinam Village, Dharapuram Taluk.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he purchased an agricultural land comprised in S.F. No. 33/1 (Old Survey No. 36 -A) to an extent of 1.36 acres of land (0.50.0 hectares) in Dhalavaipattinam Village, Dharapuram Taluk. According to the petitioner, the said land was sought to be acquired by the Government by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the welfare of the Adi Dravidas. Challenging the said Notification, the petitioner preferred writ petition in W.P. No. 22047 of 1993 before this Court and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 976 of 1997, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 02.12.1997 setting aside the very Section 4(1) Notification. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities in the year 2005 itself to effect mutation in the revenue records; the same was not considered by the authorities. Once again, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.02.2011 and that was also not considered. According to the petitioner, in view of the above, the petitioner could not even pay the kist for the past 14 years. The further case of the petitioner is that inspite of quashing of the Section 4(1) Notification, the representation of the petitioner was not considered. Hence, the petitioner preferred yet another writ petition during the year 2011 and this Court directed the authorities to consider the same and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court dated 09.09.2011 in W.P. No. 19698 of 2011, the present impugned order has been passed by the first respondent rejecting the representation made by the petitioner for effecting mutation in the revenue records only on the ground that in the writ appeal filed by the petitioner, this Court while setting aside the Section 4(1) Notification, has observed that it is open to the State to acquire the lands in accordance with law. Hence, they could not consider the case of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed, would submit that this Court had given liberty to the Government to utilize the lands for some other purpose. Hence, the impugned order passed is correct. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition.