Terasa Vs The District Revenue Officer

The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The writ proceedings was initiated challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 10.02.2010, rejecting the claim of the appellant.

¶24

The facts reveal that in order to give free house-site pattas to the Arunthathiyars, the lands in Thiruperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram Distric, were acquired, and Award No.1/1994-95, dated 09.02.1995 was issued. The Award was challenged by Mr.Isaac Naidu, who is none other than the husband of the appellant in W.P.No.2507 of 1995. The High Court passed an order on 19.10.1995, as under,

¶25

“ In view of the Supreme Court Judgment, issued, in Section 4(1) and declaration made under section 6 cannot be further be proceeded with, since, the requirement is only for the purpose of AdiDravidars, the proceedings can be initiated only under the Special Enactment Act 31/1978. Therefore, Section 4(1) notification, Section 6 declaration and the Award No.1/94-95 dated 09.02.1995 are quashed reversing liberty to the State of Tamil Nadu to initiate action to acquire the lands under the provisions of Act

¶26

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

¶27

WA No. 556 of 2022

¶28

31/1978, if they so desire. These Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.3980, 3981/1995 are dismissed.”

¶29

The land was acquired. Due to certain procedural infirmities, the Award was set aside by the High Court, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed a revised order under the provisions of the State Act. The compensation amount had been deposited in the revenue account. It is not in dispute that the subject property had been acquired for the benefit of the Arunthathiyar people. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the District Revenue Officer for grant of patta. The District Revenue Officer, by order dated 10.02.2010, rejected the claim of the appellant, which resulted in filing of the writ petition. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellant can approach the Land Acquisition Officer for receiving the compensation in respect of the acquired lands. Contrarily, she cannot file an application seeking patta in respect of the lands acquired.

¶30

Once the lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it vest with the Government. In the present case, the lands were acquired, and the compensation was deposited in revenue accounts. The acquisition proceedings became final. It is left open to the erstwhile owners to receive the compensation or file appropriate proceedings for enhancement of compensation. Contrarily, they cannot seek patta in respect of the lands that were already acquired under

¶31

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

¶32

WA No. 556 of 2022

¶33

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Writ Court found that all the facts relating to acquisition proceedings were not placed before the Court by the appellant, resulting in imposition of costs on the writ petitioner However, the fact remains that the lands were acquired in the year 1995-96 for the benefit of the Arunthathiyar people and it was assigned in favour of the landless poor under the Government welfare schemes. The petitioner, if not received the compensation, is at liberty to receive the same by following the procedures. However, she cannot seek patta in respect of the lands which were acquired long back in the year 1995-96.

¶34

This being the factum established, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the writ order. Accordingly, the writ order dated 09.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.14684 of 2010 is confirmed and the present writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶35

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.SARAVANAN J.) 02-09-2025

¶36

gd

¶37

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶38

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

¶39

WA No. 556 of 2022

¶40

To