GOWRAPPAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a block of lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894, for providing house sites to the members of Adi Dravidar Community. This was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.15790 of 1996 and based on the dictum in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ananthi Ammal [1995 (2) L.W. 819], this Court on 17.07.2003 allowed the aforesaid W.P.No.15970 of 1996. The possession however, was not handed over to the petitioners pursuant to the said Order, consequent to which the petitioners had initiated contempt proceedings in Cont.P.No.921 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 11.07.2011, primarily on the ground that the petitioners have received the compensation amount, and that if the Court were informed about this fact, it would have come to a different conclusion. This was challenged by the petitioners in L.P.A.No.3 of 2011 which the Division Bench of this Court and on 10.01.2012, this was dismissed as not maintainable However, in its order, the Division Bench had recommended fresh acquisition of the property. That did not happened till date.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court has held that L.P.A.No.3 of 2011 as not maintainable, whatever it had observed might not have the effect of a finding by the Court in a litigation. Even as to the Order passed in the Contempt Petition, whatever that was before the learned Single Judge was whether the order passed in W.P.No.15790 of 1996 had been implemented, or if the respondent to the contempt petition had disobeyed or violated the said Order, and to that extent the observation of the learned Single Judge too might not have the effect of unsettling the finding in W.P.No.15790 of 1996. Notwithstanding these facts, as on date the original status quo continued to be well preserved by the respondents in that they would neither acquire the property as was suggested or opined by the Division Bench, nor would put the petitioners back in possession of the property, and in the process the respondents literally ignore the Order of this Court in W.P.No.15790 of 1996, and they continue to have the property without any need to compensate the petitioner, nor any need to return actual physical possession of the property to the petitioners. This, argued the counsel, runs counter to the Constitutional right to property enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unaffected by whatever that may have happened before, this Court may have to take a fresh call on the basis of present state of affairs, lest there is a great danger of petitioners losing the property in expropriation by the Government in abject disregard to rule of law. He also submitted the compensation awarded lies with the Government.

(3.) Pursuant to the direction of this Court to understand the situation at the ground level, Ms.S.Shanthi, District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri has appeared before this Court in the previous posting. Today, Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, assisted by Mr.V.Sivashankar, District Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Krishnagiri and Mr.R.Anjaneyalu, Special Tahsildar(ADW), Krishnagiri, presented a plan before this Court which indicates that the property of the petitioners is divided into 224 plots besides leaving some vacant space both on the east and on the south, which are originally intended for using for 'communal purpose' and for 'future purpose' respectively, when the acquisition still subsisted. Few of these plots are under the physical occupation original beneficiaries who have put up different types of houses in the plots that they have occupied. The details are as below: TYPE OF ROOFS PLOT Nos. R.C.ROOF 74, 123, 124, 128, 136 and 146 THATCHED ROOF 135 and 138 ASBESTOS SHEET ROOF 70, 72 and 83