Decided on September 02,2015



- (1.)The petitioner submits that the subject matter of the writ petition relates to plot No.1, measuring about 9600 sq.ft. and plot No.4 measuring about 3840 sq.ft. in Thiruvidanthai Village (formerly Semmancherry Village), Chenglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District having been purchased by Cee Dee Yes Holiday Homes Pvt Ltd., Company under two registered sale deeds dated 30.07.2003. The petitioner further submits that said properties belonged to Rathina Guruswamy, Balasubramaniam and Rajapaul. Under a partition deed dated 04.08.1987, an extent of 3.86 acres in S.No.73 fell to the share of Balasubramaniam. Separate patta bearing No.277 was also issued in the name of Balasubramaniam and another extent of 3.87 acres comprised in S.No.73 fell to share of Rathina Gurusamy in the partition of 1987. Separate patta bearing No.277 was issued in favour of Rathina Guruswamy. Subsequently, under a settlement dated 13.06.2003 Rathina Guruswamy settled his 3.87 acres in S.No.73 in favour of his son Diwakar Rathinam. Thus, Balasubramaniam and Diwakar Rathinam became the owners of 3.86 acres in S.No.73/1B and 3.87 acres in S.No.73/3 respectively. The petitioner further submits that both Balasubramaniam and Diwakar Rathinam formed a layout in the property which they got. The layout also was approved in 2003. In the layout plot No.1 measuring 9600 sq.ft. was sold by Balasubramaniam and Diwakar Rathinam to M/s.CEE DEE YES Holiday Homes Private Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2003. Similarly, plot No.4, measuring about 3840 sq.ft. in the layout sold by Balasubramaniam and Diwakar Rathinam to M/s.CEE DEE YES Holiday Homes Private Ltd., under a sale deed dated 30.07.2003. Both the plots are abutting the East Coast Road. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner's vendor has constructed villas in Plot Nos.1 and 4. The petitioner company purchases these plots in Plot Nos.1 and 4 from CEE DEE YES Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2008. Even since the purchase, the petitioner Company is in possession of the same by paying necessary property tax and electricity consumption charges. These Villas are also enclosed by compound wall constructed about 35 ft away from East Coast Road.
(2.)The petitioner further submits that on 27.12.2013, a notice was served by the Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (C & M) Chenglepet on the watchman in the petitioner's property by filling up his name in the notice. The said notice is to the effect that the part of the property of the petitioner has already been acquired for widening the East Coast Road and for converting it into a four lane road and the compensation amount was about to be paid and called upon to the petitioner to vacate his premises as it constituted as an encroachment. The petitioner sent a reply on 29.01.2014 alleging that the notice was bereft of particulars such as the name of the owner of property, survey number of property under reference, description of the property, extent of land, the partiulars regarding the alleged acquisition and the relevant notification. Further, the person who came and served thenotice signed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer has only filled up the name of the Watchman as if he is the owner of the property. Even though the reply dated 29.01.2014 called for certain particulars, the respondents have not furnished any particulars despite referring to a Notifications dated 13.11.1992 and 30.11.1993 under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which contained the following particulars:-
"Government, dry, S.No.73-1, B-2 belonging to Balu Nadar, bounded on the North by S.No.73-1 A-2, East by S.No.73-2, South by S.No.73-3B and West by S.No.73-1 B-1 0.29.0 hectare (or) 0.72 acre;

Government dry, S.No.73-3B, belonging to Rathina Gurusamy son of Ramalinga Nadar, bounded on the North by S.Nos.73-1, B-2 and 73-2 East by S.No.91 South by S.No.73-4 B and West by S.No.73-3 A-0.23.5 hectare (or) 0.58 acre."

Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.)The sixth respondent has not filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition. However, counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent in connected writ petitions and as this case is similar in nature, the counter affidavit filed in those writ petition is adopted in the present case. The sixth respondent submits that the Government have decided to strengthen and widen the East Coast Road from Thiruvanmiyur to Cuddalore. As part of it, an extent of 4.55.5 hectares or 11.47 acres wet and dry lands in Thiruvidanthai Village, formerly Chengalpattu and now Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuran District have been notified for acquisition under Section 4(i) read in the Section 17(3) Urgency Clause of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.1547 (P.W/(HS.2) Department, dated 05.11.1992. It were published in T.N.G.G on 13.11.1992, Thinathoodu and Makkal Kural on 14.11.1992 and in the locality on 02.12.1992. The Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) for the above extent of lands was approved in G.O.Ms.No.1662/Public Works (HS-2) Department, dated 30.11.1993. It were published in TNGG on 30.11.1993, Kumari Murasu, Thinathoodu (Tamil Dailies) on 01.12.1993 and in the locality on 01.12.1993. The direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in their letter dated 24.02.1995 and published in the Supplement to Part II Section 2 Issue No.114 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 22.03.1995. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit I East Coast Road Project, Big Melamaiyur, Chengalpattu has been authorized to perform the function of the Collector under provision of Urgency Clause under Sub Section (i) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

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