K.Chinnathambi v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.12.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH WP No.1336 of 2003 K.Chinnathambi ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Erode District at Erode.

2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Chennimalai Road, Kangeyam, Erode District.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registration, Vellakoil, Erode District.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Kangeyam, Erode District.

5. S.M.Palanisamy

6. Thangaraj

7. Chenniappan ...

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Sale Deed, dated 24.7.2002, executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent in the office of the respondents 3 and 4 as null and void. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For RR1 to 4 : Mr.S.Gunasekar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

It is seen that on the proposal submitted by the second respondent, the Government had issued notification under Section 4(1) of

the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands in survey no.778/3-B for the Welfare of Adi Dravidar people for construction of house sites for them. Challenging the said 4(1) notification, one S.M.Palanisamy, who is said to be the aggrieved land owner, filed WP No.3168 of 1988, which was dismissed by this Court on 13.01.1995. While so, it is alleged by the petitioner that S.M.Palanisamy had sold the land under acquisition to one Thangaraj (the sixth respondent), who, in turn, had sold the land to Chenniappan (the 7th respondent herein). Therefore, the petitioner, who is said to be the beneficiary in the land acquisition, is before this Court for a declaration, to declare the sale deed dated 24.07.2002 executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the seventh respondent as null and void.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once Section 4(1)(a) notification is issued, all subsequent sale is bad in law and therefore, the sixth respondent ought not to have sold the land to the seventh respondent.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, though such transfers are not legally correct, yet, a writ of declaration cannot be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, because, the sale by the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent is a contract, which is assailable in civil proceedings. The petitioner has nothing to do with the sale and cannot seek to quash the

sale deed entered into between the sixth respondent and seventh respondent, just because he is a prospective beneficiary under the Land Acquisition scheme. It is for the Government to acquire the lands in accordance with law and allot the same to various beneficiaries in accordance with the scheme framed by the Government. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the sale deed is not sustainable.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No costs.

08.12.2016 kmi To

1. The District Collector, Erode District at Erode.

2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Chennimalai Road, Kangeyam, Erode District.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registration, Vellakoil, Erode District.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Kangeyam, Erode District.

5. The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

kmi WP No.1336 of 2003 08.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in