PADMINI SIVASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lands, which belonged to the share of the appellant's husband along with other vast area of land was acquired by the State prior to 1968. It was so acquired to develop and improve the land as a tank. Acquisition proceedings were completed, award passed and the land holders received their compensation. However, for about 28 years no action was taken for developing the total land, one Tirupur Sports Organisation " 3rd respondent herein, sought for transfer of property right of 3. 71. 0 Hectares of land in survey No. 655/1 and some others at Rakiapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Coimbatore District. THE said sports organisation, being a registered body, approved by the Government of India for getting funds, as it wanted to develop the land as a sports complex, the State of Tamil Nadu considered the matter; as the survey number was classified as'category', not in use, and as it was classified as a'pond', and there being no pond and there being no incoming water/ayacut of the lands, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi Division, the district Collector of Kovai and Commissioner of Land Administration, submitted favourable report to grant the aforesaid land and in that view, the State of tamil Nadu, from its Department of Revenue (L2) issued G. O. (Standing) No. 1136, dated 29th Oct. , 1996 and transferred the right of the land in survey nos. 655/1, 673/1 & 2, 674/2 comprised at Rakiapalayam Village, Tiruppur taluk, Coimbatore District, admeasuring an extent of 3. 71. 0 Hectares in favour of Tirupur Sports Organisation with usual conditions as stipulated in Revenue standing No. 24.

(2.) AFTER 34 years of acquisition and after six years from the date of transfer, the appellant preferred the writ petition in question " w. P. No. 37097/02, challenging G. O. Ms. No. 1136 dated 29th Oct. , 1996 with further prayer to direct the 1st and 2nd espondent to resume the land measuring an extent of 3. 71. 0 Hectares comprised in the aforesaid survey number. Learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, the present appeal was preferred against the order dated 25th June, 2004.

(3.) ON the other hand, according to the counsel for the state and the contesting respondent, the land having been transferred for construction of a sports complex, including stadium, it was open to the State to transfer such land for such public purpose. Reliance was placed on Letter no. F-25-2/2000-SP. I dated 29th Dec. , 2000, issued by the Ministry of Youth affairs and Sports, Government of India, addressed to the Sports Development authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. By the aforesaid letter, Government of India granted approval in principle for central financial assistance for the project with indoor stadium (Category-I) at Tiruppur by Tiruppur Sports Organisation, tiruppur, Coimbatore District. Approval was granted for sanctioning a sum of rs. 60 lakhs towards construction of such indoor stadium at an estimated cost of rs. 120 Lakhs. The State Government was to sponsor and spend atleast 50% of their share i. e. , rest of the Rs. 60 Lakhs. Photographs were produced to suggest that the indoor stadium and sports complex was in half way construction when the writ petition was preferred in the year 2002. According to the counsel for the respondents, the appellant having given up the prayer for reconveyance, the writ was not maintainable at her instance, as it was not a public interest litigation. Reliance was placed in the counter-affidavit as was filed in the writ petition to show that an extent of 0. 85 acres in SF No. 673/1 was alone acquired from Mr. K. N. Palanisami Gounder, whose land devolved on the husband of the appellant. The remaining land was acquired from other persons. Counsel for the appellant, while submitted that the remaining land also belong to the relations of the appellant's husband, including mother-in-law, in reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that others having not made any objection and total land having not devolved on the appellant, the appellant had no right to claim for reconveyance of the total land.