Muthukrishnan (Deceased) v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and M.P.No.2 of 2008

1. Muthukrishnan (Deceased)

2. Govindammal,

3. Kamalakannan,

4. Gopalakrishnan,

5. Lakshmi ... Petitioners (P2 to P5 are Substituted as LRS of Deceased P1.deceased Muthukrishnan, as per order dated 24.08.18 by CSNJ in WMP.21585/18 in WP.19157/2008 Vs.

1. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai,

2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Polur, Tiruvannamalai.

... Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the 1/5

file of the 1st respondent in proceedings no K1/25724/2008, 21.06.2008, and published in Tiruvanamalai District gazette notification No. 42 dated 30.06.2008.

For Petitioners : Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara for Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The notification issued, under the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Land Acquisition Act 31 of 1978, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The lands were acquired for the benefit and welfare of the Adi Dravida People of that locality. The writ petition has been filed challenging the 4(1) notification issued.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that they are not the owners of the land and the land must go to petitioner's (Muthukrishnan- deceased, P1) grandsons as per the Will executed by the father of the writ petitioner (P1). However, it is not in dispute that the 2/5

lands belonging to the petitioner's family were acquired. Whether the petitioners are interested parties or not, is one aspect of the matter and when the petitioners state that they are not the owners of the land then they have no locus to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that the notification was issued in the name of the writ petitioner (P1) as he is the interested person. Though the Will executed by the grandfather of the writ petitioner (P)1) states that the lands must go in favour of the grandson, the petitioner is to be construed as an interested person for all purposes and accordingly, notification was issued in the name of the writ petitioner(P1). That apart, initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be challenged and it is for the petitioners to raise their objections in response to the notification.

5. In the present case, the process has already been concluded and an award was passed and the lands were acquired. If at all, the petitioners are in possession of the land, they are to be construed as an encroachers, and the land absolutely vest with the Government after completion of the acquisition proceedings.

3/5

6. This being the factum, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

7. On account of the pendency of the writ petition, the award has not been notified and the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the notification by following the procedures as contemplated. 26.09.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Order (sha) To

1. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai,

2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Polur, Tiruvannamalai.

4/5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM . J., (sha) 26.09.2023 5/5