R ABDUL JABBAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A.No. 4/5832/91, dated 10.7.91 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to pass an award in respect of the petitioners'lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following: The petitioners state that they are the owners of the various bits of land, particulars of which are given in para 2 of the writ petition. The said properties were purchased by the first petitioner under different sale deeds. Petitioner No.2 is his wife and the petitioners 3 to 6 are his sons. There was a partition on 8.3.1989 and the properties were allotted to different petitioners in the said partition. The petitioners were granted pattas by the Headquarters Additional Deputy Tahsildar, Vridhachalam on the basis of the said partition deed and the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties paying the kist. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have developed the land, by planting trees and raising crops that there were five houses and three wells. They have planted teak-wood trees, eucalyptus, casua-rina trees and bamboos. According to the petitioners, the value of the trees would be several lakhs and the value of the houses and wells would be about two lakhs.

(2.) IT is further submitted that at the instance and for the purpose of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (N.L.C.) the Government issued a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short the Act) which was published in Tamil Daily (Dinakaran'on 17.1.1990 and in one another paper. Exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 17 of the Act, enquiry contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The draft declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was approved by the Government - vide G.O.652, Industries M.I.A. (2) Department, dated 25.6.1990. Sec.6 Declaration was published in the Tamil Daily 'Dinakaran'on 8.7.1990. The petitioners were waiting that they would hear something in regard to the land acquisition proceedings and were keeping quiet. During December 1991, they came to know that certain orders had been passed with respect to their land. Petitioner came to know that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.7.1991 for taking over the lands of the petitioners. The said lands were originally assigned to other persons subject to various conditions, one of the condition being that in case the lands were required by N.L.C, the assignees should surrender the lands without claiming any compensation. Invoking this condition, the second respondent has passed the impugned order cancelling the assignments made earlier. The impugned order states that notices were issued to persons in possession of the land. But the petitioners assert that they were not given any notice as alleged. They have further stated that no notice was served on the petitioners even by affixture. There was no occasion for them to refuse such notice as well. The first petitioner having purchased the lands under various registered sale deeds applied for mutation of the properties in his name. The mutation was accordingly effected. Even thereafter, he effected partition of the same lands between his wife and other petitioners - that is his sons. IT is also stated that the first petitioner purchased the said land after a period of 10 years from the date of assignment and consequently there was no violation of condition No. 8 of the order of assignment. Clause 22 of the assignment deed states that whenever the land is required by N.L.C., it should be given to the Government without compensation. According to the petitioners, they cannot oppose the acquisition of these land for N.L.C. but they would be entitled to compensation. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is filed for the relief as stated above.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 argued in support and justification of the impugned order. In his argument he reiterated the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 2. In short, he contended that the very purchase of the lands made by the first petitioner was against the special conditions attached to the assignment of the land to the original assignees. No doubt, the first petitioner purchased the lands after 10 years from the da,te of assignment. But the first petitioner admittedly does not belong to schedule caste or schedule tribe. Hence, the purchase made was in violation of the condition No.8 even as per one of the clauses specifically clause No.22, when the lands were required for N.L.C., the assignees had to surrender those lands to the Government without claiming any compensation. When the original assignees were not entitled for compensation in respect of the said lands, the petitioners cannot claim anything more than that. As regards the allegation that the petitioners were not served with notice prior to the passing of the impugned order, he states that the said notice was served by affixtures, as stated in the counter-affidavit of the second respondent. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioners placed before me the xerox copies of the impugned order and notice, both having been signed issued on the same date. In this context, the learned Government Advocate states that based on records, appropriate orders may be passed. Learned Government Advocate submitted that at the most, the petitioners are entitled for the value for the improvement or development made in the lands in question. In this regard, he wants to take support from the order dated 11.3.1994 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 13134 to 13137 of 1992 and 13449 to 13451 of 1992.