Land acquired under Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 for house sites to Harijans had been allotted to beneficiaries. The appellant sought a direction to accept his offer of an alternative site. The Division Bench held the belated claim was barred by delay and laches and dismissed the writ appeal.
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(MD)No.1611 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
S.Sarangapani
... Appellant
vs.
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the learned Judge dated 27.06.2016 passed in W.P(MD)No.715 of 2009 so far as relates to the prayer of the petitioner of offer of alternative site and allow the writ appeal.
(Prayer amended vide Court order dated 07.02.2017 made in CMP(MD)No.859 of 2017 dated 07.02.2017).
Page No.1 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.)
Challenging the order dated 27.06.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.715 of 2009 so far as rejection of the appellant's prayer regarding his offer of alternative site, this writ appeal is filed.
Page No.2 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
Court. According to the appellant, he was given liberty to approach the authorities for giving an alternative site. Hence, he submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent who rejected the same stating that the acquisition is in respect of 3.45.0 hectares of land and it was assigned to the beneficiaries. Challenging the same, the appellant filed writ petition.
Page No.3 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
114, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 28.11.2022, wherein, out of the total extent of 3.45.0 hectares acquired, the revenue records in respect of 1.30.0 hectares were directed to be mutated in the name of the appellant and 16 others in compliance of the order of the Writ Court.
Page No.4 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
law that delay defeats equity. Acquisition proceedings were initiated in
1998 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Scheme Act and the Rules (Tamil Nadu Act 31/78) framed thereunder, for providing house sites to Harijans. The purpose for which the lands were acquired has already been achieved by dividing it and allotting it to the eligible beneficiaries. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in larger public interest and which cannot be changed at the whims and fancies of the appellant. As stated supra, the amended prayer of the appellant is also hit by delay and laches, as such, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(V.B.S., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.) 07.03.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala
To
Page No.5 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
Page No.6 of 7
W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1611 of 2016 DATED : 07.03.2024
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant was entitled to an alternative site in place of land acquired under Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978, given that the acquisition concluded in 1998 and the prayer was raised belatedly.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Sarangapani
The Secretary to Government, Adhi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
The Collector of Sivagangai, Sivagangai
The Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare, Collectorate, Sivagangai
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
