Writ appeals concerning compensation for lands acquired for the Palar-Porunthalaru dam at Palani. The appellants claimed to be interested persons despite not being named in the 1990 acquisition notifications. The Division Bench held such civil rights must be established before a Civil Court and confirmed the writ order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
... Appellants in both the Writ Appeals.
Vs.
1/12
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
... Respondents in both the Writ Appeals.
[A1(died). A2 (already on record) and R13 to R15 as LRS of deceased A1].
[A1 (died) is substituted by the respondents R13 to R15 who were brought on record as LRS of deceased A1, vide order of court dated 28/06/2024 made in CMP.Nos.15267 and 15269 of 2021 in WA.Nos.1590 and 1591 of 2013 (SMSJ and CKJ)]
Prayer in W.A.No.1590/2013:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.4048 of 2003 dated 21.01.2011.
Prayer in W.A.No.1590/2013:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.4049 of 2003 dated 21.01.2011.
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
For Appellant in both the Writ Appeals : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mrs.P.Veena Suresh and Mr.T.R.Raja Raman For Respondents in both the Writ Appeals : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R4); : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Saravana Kumar (for R5 to R12) : Mr.M.Rajasekhar (for R13-15)
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The Intra Court appeals on hand have been instituted challenging the common order dated 21.01.2011 in W.P.Nos.4048 and 4049 of 2003. The writ petitioners are the appellants before us.
3/12
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
for a total consideration Rs.1,75,000/-. The company purchased 445 acres in Padachu village, Balasamudram village and Ayyampulli village for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- under sale deed dated 23.12.1959. Since the company was not in a position to use the lands in Ayyampulli village, the company reconveyed the land measuring 31.79 acres in Ayyampulli village under a sale deed dated 30.03.1960 in favour of said Kullamma Naicker. Out of the total consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- under the sale deed dated 23.12.1959, the company paid only Rs.10,000/- to the vendor Kullamma Naicker and the balance amount was withheld.
5/12
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
No.8/92(A2) and R.O.C.No.2372/89 A2 vide Award No.7/92 (A2) respectively, dated 10.02.1993.
10. We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot have any application with reference to the claim of the appellants. The appellants admittedly were not considered as owners of the lands acquired for public purposes. That being so, they have to establish their right in the manner known to law. The High Court, in exercise of
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
powers of judicial review, is not expected to adjudicate such nature of disputes relating to civil rights.
11. Admittedly the appellants were not recognised as land owners and admittedly they have not participated in the award proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the claim of the appellants that they are interested persons were also negatived by this Court. When the application of the Land Acquisition Act itself cannot be availed of by the appellants, considering the provisions of the Act would not arise at all. The appellants have to primarily establish before the competent Civil Court that they are interested persons in respect of the lands acquired for public purposes. In the absence of establishing the said factum, the authorities may not be in a position to consider their case for grant of compensation. The findings of the Writ Court, crystalizing the rights of the parties may not be required. Civil rights are to be crystalized in a trial natured proceedings before the competent Civil Court. Based on certain averments in the writ petition, such rights of civil nature cannot be established. It requires recording of evidence and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have to establish their civil right, as interested persons, before the competent Civil Court of law.
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
12.
12. As far as the Government is concerned, they have concluded the
land acquisition proceedings in all respects, constructed the dam which is now in public usage. The compensation determined was deposited and respondents 6 to 12 have already received the compensation. Under these circumstances, if at all the appellants claim that they are interested persons within the definition of the Act, they have to first establish that they are interested persons, thereafter, approach the authorities to consider their claims. In the absence of establishing the same, the appellants are not entitled to seek any relief in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision arrived by the Writ Court. However, we are of the opinion that findings regarding crystallization of the civil rights of the parties became unnecessary and such rights are to be established only in the manner known to law. Therefore, the appellants are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the purpose of establishing their claim as interested persons, if they have any legally enforceable right. In the absence of establishing the same, they are not entitled for any relief. In the event of instituting a suit at the instance of
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
the appellants, the findings, if any made by the Writ Court, need not be considered and such suits are to be decided uninfluenced by the factual findings made in the order passed in the Writ Petitions or in the Writ Appeals.
14. However, the decision arrived by the Writ Court is in consonance
with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act since the appellants could not able to establish any enforceable right under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
15. Thus, the the writ order stands confirmed and the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.J.,) (C.K.J.,) 09.07.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No (sha)
10/12
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
To
4.The Executive Engineer, PWD, Nanganjiyar Reservoir Project Palani.
11/12
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
(sha)
W.A.Nos.1590 & 1591 of 2013
09.07.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether persons who were not notified in the fresh 1990 Section 4(1) notification but claim interest in the acquired land can seek compensation via writ proceedings.
Whether civil rights claims regarding land ownership should be adjudicated judicially or established before a Civil Court.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
L. Jagannath (Died)
J. Thulasidaran
The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional, Palani
The Chief Engineer, PWD, Pollachi Region, Coimbatore
The Superintending Engineer, PWD, Palani
The Executive Engineer, PWD, Nanganjiyar Reservoir Project Palani
S.M.Subramaniam
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
