Kasilinga Nadar v. The Government Of

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.412 & 7193 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.329 & 5672 of 2017 1.Kasilinga Nadar 2.K.Vijayaragavan ... Petitioners Vs ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to re-convey and transfer the petitioners' properties situated in Survey No.496/2 measuring 0.39.0 Ares, 497/3F measuring 0.18.5 Ares, 497/3G measuring 0.16.0 Ares at Seevalaperi Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District in the name of the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Aravindraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader W.P.(MD)No.7193 of 2017:

Kasilinga Nadar ... Petitioner Vs 1/4

3. The Revenue Inspector-Ervady Office of the Tahsildar, Nanguneri, ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravindraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioners' lands were acquired for the purpose of Adi Dravidar Welfare. The acquisition proceedings took place wayback in the year 1991. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said proceedings. In the year 2008, the petitioners once again moved the authority for reconveyance. The authority rejected the petitioners' request. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed W.P(MD)No.7689 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.04.2014. In the said order, it was specifically observed that even though the purpose, for which, the land was acquired no longer exists, still as per Section 48 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands can be utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. When the petitioners' request for reconveyance was already rejected, the question of maintaining one more writ petition does not arise.

2/4

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would however submit that the possession of the land is still with the petitioners and therefore, in view of the Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed. I do not find any merit in his contention also.

4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indoor Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, categorically held that the theory of lapse can be invoked only when the twin conditions, namely, the non-taking of possession and non-deposit of compensation amount are fulfilled. In this case, though on ground possession may be with the petitioners herein, it is not in dispute that the compensation amount was already deposited. Therefore, Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Look at from any angle, no case is made out for granting relief.

Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // /07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mga To 3/4

3. The Revenue Inspector-Ervady Office of the Tahsildar, Nanguneri, +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-27431[F] dated 22/06/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.412 of 2017 21.06.2022 RD(01.07.2022) 4P 5C 4/4