Allowed

A.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Oct 2021WA/3497/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals against a Common Order in land acquisition proceedings under the Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme. The Court found that objections from land owners regarding running beneficiaries were not addressed. It remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry, directing the Special Tahsildar to verify if specific previous beneficiaries still need allotment based on their land/house status

What did the court decide?

Common Order remanded; fresh enquiry mandated with 15-day notice to appellants and beneficiaries; disposal within 8 weeks, deleting ineligible beneficiaries.

A.Jayaraman Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019 and CMP.Nos.22413,
22426 and 22442/2019
1. A.Jayaraman
2. A.Annamalai ... Appellants in W.A.No.3497/2019
T.Muthusamy ... Appellant in W.A.No.3500/2019
D.Natarajan ... Appellant in W.A.No.3503/2019
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
2. The District Collector (in-charge),
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
4. L.Thangaponnu ... Respondents in all Writ Appeals

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶8

1/6

¶9

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶10

Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Common Order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos.9411, 8817 and 8818 of 2005 dated 15.07.2019

¶11

In all W.As. For Appellants : Mr.S.Kamadevan

¶12

For respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
1 to 3 Government Advocate
For 4 th respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
for M/s.C.S.Associates
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)

¶13

These Writ Appeals have been filed against the Common Order passed in W.P.Nos.8817, 8818 and 9411/2005 dated 15.07.2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶14

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit

¶15

that when the appellants are the owners of the cultivable lands situated in Survey Nos.52/1, 52/2 and 53/6B measuring to an extent of 0.39.5, 0.33.0 and 1.43.0 hectares respectively at Mettupalayam South Village, Perambalur, a notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 was issued by the 3^rd respondent herein, namely, the Special Tahsildar,

¶16

2/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶18

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶19

Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur, Perambalur District, proposing to acquire the lands-in-question to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars by fixing the enquiry on 12.12.2002 calling for objections, if any, and the appellants sought for an adjournment by specifying the reasons. But the 3^rd respondent proceeded with the enquiry without even looking into the genuineness of the time sought for participating in the enquiry. The refusal to grant adjournment is arbitrary, he pleaded. However, when detailed objections were sent stating that the following persons, namely, 1. Loganathan, 2. Sankaran, 3. Boongal, 4. Kalyani, 5. Thavamani, 6. Jayamma, 7. Nataraj, 8. Natesan, 9. Periasamy, 10. Dhanapaul, 11. Arumugam, 12. Karruthamani, 13. Subramanian and 14.Mottaiyan were already beneficiaries who got the allotment in the earlier acquisition proceedings, but they have sold away the allotted plots to some third parties, without even verifying whether the objections raised by the appellants were correct or incorrect, the 3^rd respondent wrongly proceeded with the matter. Moreover, when there

¶20

was a specific objection raised that the lands were already acquired during the year 1986 to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars measuring to an extent of 7 acres and in that there are vacant plots still available without allotting and occupying, therefore, the same can be utilised and that the beneficiaries who got the allotment in the earlier acquisition proceedings have also sold away their plots to some

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6

¶22

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶23

other third parties and the names of the such beneficiaries numbering 14 were given, it was not considered. This aspect was also not carefully looked into by the learned Single Judge.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the appellants also drawing our attention to their objections dated 10.12.2002 and apprising the fact that 14 persons were already beneficiaries of the earlier acquisition proceedings submitted that the 3^rd respondent has not considered the said objection. Even the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge is ambiguous and unclear. Above all, when a notice of enquiry was issued on 22.11.2002, it was served on the land owners on 01.12.2002. The notice of enquiry dated 22.11.2002 was served on the appellants only on 01.12.2002 also indicates that they were not provided with even 15 days clear notice. Therefore, the present Writ Appeals have to be allowed, he pleaded.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 is unable to tell us why the objections raised by the appellants were not considered by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur. The reason being that when a specific objection was raised giving clear names of the beneficiaries as to why they should be again identified as beneficiaries in the subsequent

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6

¶27

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶28

proceedings, we were not able to get any sufficient explanation. This vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge, which has to be looked into again afresh. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the common order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos.9411, 8817 and 8818 of 2005 dated 15.07.2019 thereby remanding the matter back to the 3^rd respondent herein, namely, The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur, Perambalur District for fresh enquiry on merits, who shall issue notice to the appellants and 4^th respondent herein, and on receipt of their objections and after thorough investigation, decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

At this stage, learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that while holding fresh enquiry, notice may be served on the beneficiaries concerned.

¶30

Recording the same, the 3^rd respondent is also hereby directed to issue notice to the beneficiaries concerned by giving 15 days clear notice. The 3^rd respondent should keep in mind that on enquiry, if any one of the 14 beneficiaries mentioned by the appellants is found having sufficient land or house, who were benefited from the previous proceedings, their names shall be deleted from the list of

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6

¶32

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶33

T.RAJA, J.

¶34

and

¶35

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶36

tsi

¶37

beneficiaries as they are ineligible. The above said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶38

copy of this Order.

¶39

With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
(T.R.J.,) (T.V.T.S.J.,)
07.10.2021
tsi
To
1. The District Collector,
Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶40

The District Collector (in-charge), Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶41

The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶42

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶44

6/6

¶45

W.A.Nos.3497, 3500 and 3503/2019

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/6

A.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Veera Raghavan Vs the Commissioner and Special Commissioner of Land Administration

The Management of Murali Vs the Presiding Officer

Imc Ltd., a Company Vs Kamarajar Port Limited

Gururaj Vs the District Collector

Thamiraparani Investments Ltd. Vs the Sub-Registrar

Citrex Products Ltd., Vs the District Registrar