S JAYAMOHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land and building in Survey Nos. 10/1 and 10/2 of Ramapuram Village except by due process of law.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the land in S. Nos. 10/1 and 10/2 of Ramapuram Village comprising an extent of 6,936 sq.ft. belongs to him, his brother and mother and the title to the said property is traceable from the year 1947. The land in S. No. 10 of Ramapuram Village originally belonged to one Nainiappa Naicker and Errappa Naicker. Under a registered partition deed dated 12.5.1947, the land to an extent of 1 acre 36 cents in S. No. 10 was allotted to Errappa Naicker. Of the said land, 66 cents was sold to one Pappathi Ammal on 9.8.1956 by a registered sale deed. Out of the said 66 cents, Pappathi Ammal sold 11 cents of land to Shenbagavalli Ammal and another 11 cents to Rajabathar on 9.7.1964 by way of two registered sale deeds. After the said transactions, S. No. 10 was subdivided into S. Nos. 10/1 and 10/2. The 11 cents purchased by Shenbagavalli Ammal was assigned S. No. 10/1 and the 11 cents purchased by Rajabather was assigned S. No. 10/2. Thereafter, Rajabather executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of one Natarajan for an extent of 51/2 cents (out of 11 cents) in S. No. 10/2 by a registered document on 4.5.1990. Similarly, Shenbagavalli Ammal also executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of Natarajan regarding her 11 cents in S. No. 10/1 on 26.9.1990 by a registered document. The Power Agent of Shenbagavalli and Rajabather sold the said 161/2 cents of land in favour of the petitioner, his brother and mother by way of three registered sale deeds dated 24.12,1990, 24.12.1990 and 31.12.1990 and from then onwards they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property.

(3.) IT is further stated in the counter that notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were sent to the land owners namely Shenbagavalli and Rajabather, but they did not appear for award enquiry and hence the compensation for the land was ordered to be kept in the Civil Court deposit under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the land owner in S. No. 10/1 by name Shenbagavalli filed W.P. No. 11394 of 1990, challenging the land acquisition, and4he same was dismissed on 10.2.1999. The land in S. No. 10/1 measuring an extent of 11 cents was handed over to the Board on 6.11.2007, but the land in S. No. 10/2 is under due process of handing over. On verification of the site, it was found that the land in S. No. 10/1 measuring an extent of 11 cents was encroached by the writ petitioner by way of constructing a commercial building. Further, the writ petitioner and two others are the subsequent purchasers of the property in question from Shenbagavalli and therefore the claiming of ownership for the said property by them is absolutely null and void. The petitioner unauthorisedly encroached the Tamil Nadu Housing Board land and started constructing a commercial complex in the property, which is illegal. After passing of the award, the land in dispute belongs to TNHB and no person can claim or question the ownership and possession. The issue of show cause notice to the encroacher or a trespasser is not mandatory. The Land Acquisition Officer was empowered to take possession from the District Administration and hand over the same to the requisitioning body i. e., TNHB and accordingly the property was delivered to the Board on 6.11.2007. As per Section 48-B of the Act, reconveyance of-land is applicable only to the true land owners viz., Shenbagavalli and Rajabather and not to the writ petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser and does not have any right or title over the property. The petitioner has deliberately taken risk in purchasing the property and constructing a commercial complex with an ulterior motive to grab the property of TNHB. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.