SARAVANA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
C.S. Karnan, J. -
(1.)THE short facts of the case are as follows:
"The petitioner submits that he is the son of late Mr. V.K. Subramanian. His father expired in the month of February 2009 leaving behind his mother Kasthuri and his two brothers Arivazhagan and Dhanasekar and himself as his legal heirs of his late father. His younger brother Dhanasekar expired on 03.08.2007 leaving behind his wife Mrs. D. Kalaivani and two sons Karthik and Aravind as his legal heirs. The petitioner further submits that he is filing this writ petition for the benefit of all his family members mentioned above."
(2.)HE submits that the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 311/1 and 318/1 measuring 5.71 acres in Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepurm District (hereinafter referred to as the subject property) originally belonged to his father, Mr. V.K. Subramanian. He had purchased the same by way of registered sale deed 11.05.1979 registered as Document No. 1149 of 1979 in the office of the Joint Registrar, Saidapet. He submits that right from the date of purchase, his father always maintained the subject property as a Thope and grew a large number of coconut trees. He invested many years of hard labour and incurred huge expenditure to raise the trees to a viable state.
He humbly submits that on 23.05.1990, the first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O. Ms. No. 454 to acquire 21.830 hectares including the subject property for the alleged public purpose of developing the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme. He submits that throughout the acquisition process, his father had approached the Respondents several times requesting them to drop the acquisition of the subject property on various grounds including, inter alia, that the Government policy is not to acquire thope land as far as practicable, the subject property is located on the periphery of the scheme, similarly situated lands had been excluded from the acquisition and that the procedure contemplated under 1894 Act had not been followed. However, without considering the objections raised by his father, the first respondent issued declaration dated 17.06.1991 in G.O. Ms. No. 996 under section 6 of 1894 Act acquiring the subject property to implement the neighbourhood scheme. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) also passed the Award dated 18.06.1993 in Award No. 2 of 1993 fixing the compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the land. It is pertinent here to note that not a single paisa has been paid under the Award till date. To the best of his knowledge, the award amount has also not been deposited with any Court.
(3.)HE submits that having no other option, his father approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 15331 of 1993, seeking to quash the Section 4(1) notification dated 06.06.1990, the Section 6 declaration dated 17.06.1991 and the award dated 18.06.1993. However, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 04.01.2001 only on the ground of delay and laches since even though the section 6 declaration had been issued on 17.06.1991, his father had approached this Court only in 1993 after a period of two years. The learned Judge did not pronounce any judgment on the merits of the objections raised by his father.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.