GANESAN @ NALLAMARA GOUNDER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: - The first petitioner has filed the above writ petition on behalf of himself and the petitioners 2 to 28. The first petitioner submits that in the year 1982, the Government of Tamil Nadu brought up an irrigation scheme viz., Echampadi Anaikkattu Scheme. For providing a canal for the said scheme, the Government proposed to acquire lands in the villages. The petitioners' lands were also subjected to the acquisition. After issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called "the Act", the Special Thasildar (L.A.) conducted an enquiry for passing of the award on 03.06.1985 and 04.06.1985. The first petitioner further submits that originally, the Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners 1 to 5, 7 to 10, 12, 15 to 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 and the deceaseds Kannu, Jeyarathnam, Murugan, Chinnappan, Vengan, Thiruma Gounder, Chinnasamy. The legal -heirs of the deceased landowners are petitioners 6, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, 27 respectively.

(2.) THE first petitioner further submits that the Special Tahsildar passed an award fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,636/ - per acre with 30% solatium and 12% interest. Some of the landowners filed L.A.O.P.Nos.108 to 116 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri. The Sub Court, by its order dated 15.09.1995 enhanced the compensation amount and passed the decree and judgment as follows: -

(3.) THE first petitioner further submits that the second and third respondents did not send working sheet to the fourth respondent so as to enable him to pass orders paying the compensation. Hence, the petitioners were forced to file writ petition in W.P.No.23432 of 2006, for a direction to the second and third respondents to send the working sheet as per the request of the fourth respondent dated 22.01.2004. The first petitioner further submits that by common order dated 25.07.2006, this Court was pleased to direct the second respondent to send the working sheet as required by the fourth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directed the fourth respondent to pass orders on merits on receipt of such working sheet within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The first petitioner further submits that as the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.23432 to 23436 of 2006 dated 25.07.2006 was not obeyed by the respondents, the petitioners were forced to file Contempt Application in Contempt Petition Nos.1663 to 1667 of 2007. The first petitioner further submits that the third respondent herein has filed a detailed counter in the contempt petition No.1666 of 2007, wherein it has been stated that no application under Section 28 -A has been preferred by the petitioners. The first petitioner further submits that in the counter filed in the contempt petition No.1666 of 2007 in W.P.No.23435 of 2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnangi, the third respondent herein mislead the Court by stating in the counter that no application under Section 28 -A of the Act was preferred by the petitioners. It is pertinent to note here that the respondents herein, in November 2009 have taken a stand that the Collector had rejected the petitioners request on 30.08.1999 itself and the same was not communicated to the petitioners herein. While passing common order in contempt petitions on 07.04.2010, this Court has given a specific direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to forward a copy of the order dated 30.08.1999 to the petitioners to the address found in the contempt petition, by registered post within two weeks.