R. SARASWATHI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submits that the property in S.No. 118 in Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk originally belonged to her father -in -law and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same After his demise, the same was inherited by her husband viz., K.C.Ramalingam. Her husband and her sons entered into a registered partition deed dated 15.12.1993 in Doc.No. 7117 of 1993, on the file of SRO, Gandhipuram. The partition deed was duly executed and validly acted upon by the parties to the same. In the said partition, S.No. 118/1 to an extent of Ac 1.54 of land was allotted to the share of her husband viz., K.C.Ramalingam and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property from and prior to the date of partition. She further states that the above lands comprised of house and agricultural lands, where coconut and other trees were cultivated and the revenue records stood in his name. After his demise, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the house therein and also doing agricultural activities therein. The petitioner further submits that at this point of time, the third respondent herein invoked the provisions of Land Acquisition Proceedings over the above mentioned property by issuing a notification in LA GO.Ms.251.BC, dated 19.12.1990 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The respondent issued notification for compulsory acquisition for allotting the lands to backward and most backward classes' people. The notification was subsequently followed by a declaration in G.O.3D No. 21, dated 16.03.1994. Her husband and her son unsuccessfully questioned both the notifications. The respondents after issuance of the notification, proceeded with passing of award and had ultimately passed an award dated 14.12.2012 and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,97,724/ -. Her other family members received the award towards their share with protest and the share towards her entitlement was deposited before the civil Court and she has not received the same till date.

(2.) THE petitioner further submits that although the land was notified way back in the year 1990 and declared under Section 6 of the Act in 1994, she is still in possession of the property till date. As mentioned earlier, she is residing in the above property and remaining lands are used by her for agricultural activities. She is residing in the property along with her granddaughter and daughter -in -law. She further submits that the respondents herein are not all interested in proceeding further with the above acquisition proceedings. If at all they were interested they would have put the lands into use by allotting the land to any beneficiary but till date, they have not done so. The longevity of the proceedings will speak volumes not only on the lapse but also the disinterest of the respondents in the acquisition process. The petitioner further submits that the above property although alleged to be important for public welfare, as mentioned in the paper, did not serve any useful practical purpose. The respondents having felt the same, did not show any interest in the acquisition. if at all the respondents were interested, they would have taken effective steps to complete the acquisition process. The lapse of nearly 25 years would itself make it amply clear that there is no useful purpose much less public purpose involved in the acquisition. She further submits that the reason being that, the neighbouring lands sought to be acquired for the same alleged public purpose was quashed by this Court by its order dated 25.10.2002 in W.P.No. 14252 of 1996. She further submits that by the above mentioned order, the acquisition becomes redundant as the respondent cannot take the lands by piece meal and the same had resulted in not achieving the purposes of acquisition itself. The petitioner further submits that the respondents had conducted a study as to whether the acquired lands can be put into use for any other public purpose and the result was negative and hence, it is crystal clear that the land acquired is not useful either for the purpose acquired for or any other public purpose. Moreover the lands cannot achieve the goal due to efflux of time.

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that she has a legal right to seek for the prayer as she has parted with her lands and have also demonstrated with the respondents that the lands acquired is not viable for any public purpose, and also demonstrated that she comes within the parameters enshrined in many number of orders of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the procedures under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act. At any rate, she has a legal right to assert the status of her request under the representations. The respondents being statutory authorities are bound to respond to the same and the failure on the part of the respondents had forced her to approach this Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.