M STALIN AROCKIARAJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of 0.92.0 hectares of punja land in village Survey No,46/4C in Somanathamangalam village, Sivagangai Taluk was notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as "the Act") in Form-II read with Rule 3(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 by the District Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District in the District Gazette dated 17.9.96. In the notification one Tmt.Janaki Ammal, W/o Velayutham was shown as the land owner. AN award dated 10.1.97 was passed quantifying the amount of compensation for the land to be paid to the said Janaki Ammal. The acquisition proceedings were questioned by one Er.V.Michael, Correspondent, Sahayamatha & St.Michael Teacher Training Institute, Sivagangai on the ground that the land in question was purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 28.4.84 from one Savarimuthu and he had obtained patta on 30.3.85. From the date of the said purchase, he was in possession and thereafter he executed a settlement deed dated 20.5.91 in favour of the institute, namely, Sahayamatha & St.Michael Teacher Training Institute.

(2.) THOUGH he had obtained patta as early as on 30.3.85, the revenue authorities, by mistake and without proper verification of the records, granted patta to one Tmt.Janaki Ammal. A suit in O.S.No,469 of 1994 was also filed by him on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai and he obtained an order of injunction on 7.7.94 and the order of injunction was also served on the Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer on the very same day. In spite of the service of the order of injunction and the Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer were aware of the order of injunction granted in favour of him, Section 4(1) notification was issued and an order under Section 6 of the Act was also passed. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Sivagangai Taluk passed an order dated 23.1.97 granting patta in favour of 52 persons. The entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated, as he was not put on notice either under Section 4(2) or under Section 4(1) or for the receipt of compensation as determined in terms of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act. He also alleged that the land has been settled in favour of the educational institute and it is situate just in front of the main buildings preventing the access to the institute as such. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order under appeal.

(3.) IN reply, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that inasmuch as the issue relating to the locus standi was not raised in the counter affidavit, it cannot be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage. To meet out the above, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the counter affidavit at paragraphs 4, 7 & 8, the issue relating to the maintainability is raised and the writ petition was opposed.