TMT ROJAVATHY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST GEORGE; SPECIAL THASILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION), HOUSING SCHEME, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT ; MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD,
LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-487
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 03,2014

Tmt Rojavathy Appellant
VERSUS
Principal Secretary To Government, Housing And Urban Development Department, Fort St George; Special Thasildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Hosur, Krishnagiri District ; Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUDHA & OTHERS VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [REFERRED]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner submits that his father Mr.T.Rajagopal Naidu owned lands at Survey No.571/1-B2 in Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District to an extent of 0.57 Hectare. Out of this, his father donated 25 cents of land for the construction of "Sree Sathya Sai Baba Temple and the same is built and worshipped by huge congregation of devotees. In the remaining lands, the petitioner's father got permission in the year 1989 for running a semi permanent theatre in the name of "Saravana Thirai Arangam" and the said theatre is running peacefully. The petitioner further submitted that the first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by way of G.O.Ms.No.137, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 30.01.1991, published in Government Gazetee dated 20.02.1991, stating that the lands are required for construction of dwelling houses in a compact block by the third respondent.

(2.)The petitioner further submits that his father/Mr.T.Rajagopal Naidu Challenged the said notification by way of writ petition in W.P.No.11715 of 1991 before this Court. While the writ petition was pending before this Court, the petitioner's father expired on 10.12.1999 leaving behind two legal-heirs, viz., the petitioner and her brother R.Raveendran. The petitioner's brother was brought on record in the said writ petition. This Court, by its order dated 16.02.2001, dismissed the above writ petition and gave the liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Government for deletion of the subject land from acquisition and directed the Government / respondents to consider and pass orders within a period of three months, after such representation was made by the petitioner. The petitioner's brother has made a representation to the first respondent as per the Court order and the same was rejected by the first respondent on 27.07.2005, stating that the land in question is essentially required for Tamil Nadu Housing Board and there is no possibility of deletion from acquisition proceedings.
(3.)The petitioner further submits that the petitioner's brother had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33542 of 2005 before this Court, challenging the rejection order passed by the first respondent, dated 27.07.2005 and this Court, by its order dated 11.02.2006 has dismissed the above said writ petition. The first respondent for the very similar scheme exempted the Balasubramaniya Touring Theatre Land and Vinayaka Touring Theatre lands. But, the benefits were not extended to the petitioner's land and further there exists a primary school called " Sai Geethanjali" in the acquired lands. The petitioner further submits that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1991 and the award was passed on 08.04.1994 by the second respondent vide Award No.2 of 1994. But till date, the compensation was not paid to the landowners and not deposited in the Court and the physical possession of the property which was acquired through Land Acquisition are with them. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner's son filed a petition under the Right to Information Act and information was given by the second respondent dated 28.03.2014 which reveals that the second respondent has not taken possession of the land and the compensation amount is in Sub Treasury, Hosur. Further there is no record with regard to compensation deposited in the Court. All this would show that the physical possession of the property of the subject land is with them and no compensation has been paid to the respective landowners and the acquired lands are vested with the respective landowners.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.