M ARULARASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) The writ petitioner has purchased 0.40 cents of land in Survey No.35/4 in Keelpathi Village, Kammapuram Union, Cuddalore District in the year 2002 and according to him after purchase he has constructed a house measuring an extent of 300 sq.ft., in the same year after obtaining permission from the Village Panchayat. He has also got electricity service connection and living in the building from 2002 with his family. (ii) The second respondent by invoking powers under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Act 10/99) sought the petitioner's reply for the proposed acquisition of the above said property. It is admitted that the petitioner has consented for acquisition, however, on the basis that there will be a rehabilitation and resettlement along with the compensation. (iii) According to the petitioner, the second respondent has recorded the same and promised to provide suitable rehabilitation. Thereafter, a notification was published as per Section 3 of the Act in the Government Gazette dated 7.7.2006 acquiring the lands. The petitioner like other similarly situated persons has been under the impression that he will be entitled for the rehabilitation programme as per the National Policy for Resettlement and Rehabilitation Programme of 2003. When the award proceedings were pending as per Section 7 of the said Act, the petitioner again represented for rehabilitation. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,05,347/- in September 2006 for compensation and thereafter, notice was issued as per Rule 9 directing the petitioner to surrender and deliver possession. The petitioner has been under the impression that the possession will be directed to be surrendered only after rehabilitation is completed since he has no other place to go. The acquisition is for the benefit of the 3rd respondent, Neyveli Lignite Corporation who is engaged in mining lignite over 10,000 hectares which have been acquired since 1956. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in addition to the statutory compensation as promised by the respondents 2 and 3, he is entitled for the rehabilitatory measures as per the scheme framed by the Government of India which is a national policy. The national policy of the year 2003 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part-I, Section No.46 dated 17.2.2004 aims on minimising the large scale displacements to the extent possible. The policy also essentially addresses the need to provide succor to the rural poor and also downtrodden people like small and marginal farmer, SCs/STs and women who have been displaced. As per the said national policy an administrator for resettlement and rehabilitation has to be appointed for every project who will identify the non-displacing or least displacing alternatives in consultation with the requiring body, hold consultation with the project affected families while preparing a resettlement and rehabilitation scheme, ensure interest of adversely affected families, prepare a draft plan/scheme of resettlement and rehabilitation, prepare a budget including estimated expenditure of various components of acquisition of land regarding resettlement, acquire adequate land for the project, allot land and sanction benefits and to perform any other incidental functions thereon. (iv) As per the scheme, the administrator has to survey within 90 days and should submit a report to the State Government which has to be published by the State Government within 45 days. (v) According to the petitioner, in spite of the National Policy of 2003, the respondents have not implemented the same. In the meantime, the third respondent proposed to have the second mining inspection and proposed to acquire land to an extent of 5407-34-00 hectares in some of villages in Chidambaram, Virdhachalam and Panruti Taluk and the second respondent has also submitted a proposal on 9.1.2005. (vi) It is the case of the petitioner that on the recommendation of the District Collector, the first respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.66, Industries (M.A.) Department dated 17.05.2005 according revised administrative sanction for acquisition of 1929.28.83 hectares of land under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of lands for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 and the order of the 1st respondent directed the third respondent to follow the National Policy for resettlement and rehabilitation. The conduct of the 3rd respondent in proposing to acquire more land for its benefit without maintaining rehabilitation scheme affects the interest of many persons like the petitioner and therefore the petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction against the respondents to provide alternative land and other rehabilitation measures as contemplated under the National Policy of Resettlement and Rehabilitation of projects affected families of 2003 in respect of the land comprising Survey Number 35/4 acquired in Keelpathi Village, Virudhachalam taluk acquired in Notification at Page No.13-14 of Part 7 Section 2 of the Tamilnadu Government Gazette No.159 dated 7.7.2006.

(2.) (i) The Deputy General Manager, Land Acquisition Department of the 3rd respondent, National Lignite Corporation has filed counter. According to the 3rd respondent the National Project of resettlement and rehabilitation 2003 is a policy document of the Government of India giving broad guidelines which addresses the need to provide succor to the assetless rural poor and resource poor sections, namely, small and marginal farmers, SC/STs and women who have been displaced. (ii) According to the third respondent the National Policy is an overall policy and the same cannot be implemented half-way through unless and until after the completion of the entire work. As per the National Policy, the administrator has to be appointed by the State Government and in respect of the 3rd respondent such administrator shall be appointed in consultation with the Central Government and after the appointment of such administrator the affected zone is to be ascertained after taking survey to identify the details of the project affected families and other procedures. The States have not implemented the said National Policy of 2003 and the Government of Tamil Nadu has not appointed any Administrator so far. The third respondent itself is having a duly approved Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy in 1998 which is in force. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's property has been acquired in the manner known to law as per Act 10 of 1999 and award has been passed on 11.6.2007 and the petitioner has not objected about the acquisition at any point of time and after the award was passed the award amount of Rs.1,05,347/- has been disbursed to the petitioner on 14.8.2007 as per section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999. (iii) According to the 3rd respondent after publication of notice under Section 3(1) the acquired land vest with the Government free from all encumbrances from 7.7.2006. Thereafter, Form-E as per rule 9 read with section 4(2) was issued and served on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is under legal obligation to surrender possession of the property within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. In case of failure of surrender of possession under Section 4(3) of the Act, the Collector is entitled to take possession. The presence of National Policy by which rehabilitation is provided for does not enable the petitioner to continue to be in possession since the land acquisition process has been completed under Act Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999. It is also denied by the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent has given any promise to provide alternate accommodation at the time of acquisition. The policy itself is on compassionate ground. Therefore, there is no question of third respondent going back from any promise. The resettlement and rehabilitation Policy is aimed at providing relief to genuinely displaced persons who are compelled to lose their livelihood owing to acquisition of their lands or house which is also the scheme of the national policy of 2003. The resettlement and rehabilitation benefits are not forming part of the Land Acquisition Act or Tamil Nadu Act 10/99 at all. It is the case of the third respondent that the petitioner if he is really entitled as per the scheme he will be provided alternate accommodation. It is further submitted that as far as the petitioner's property is concerned even as per the sale deed by which he has purchased the property it is described as an agricultural land and therefore it is not a dwelling home and in these circumstances providing of alternate accommodation immediately does not arise and other documents provided by the petitioner including ration card have been obtained after the acquisition proceeding have been completed and therefore the authority contemplated has to verify the correctness of the same. It is also the further case of the 3rd respondent that the Government of India in October 2007 has published in the Official Gazette National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007. It is an improved version of the 2003 national policy. It is pursuant to the said 2007 national policy of the Central Government, the Tamil Nadu Government has appointed District Collector, Cuddalore as Administrator for Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy and the formal notification is awaited. It is also specifically stated by the third respondent that it is the intention of the Corporation to implement NRRP 2007 not only in respect of future land acquisition but also in cases where possession is yet to be taken. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner becomes eligible to the benefits under the National Policy he will be given the same.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the entire records.