IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN WRIT APPEAL No.787 OF 2002 1. K.N.Soundararajan (died) 2. Rukmani Soundararajan 3. Jayanthi Balakrishnan 4. Balaji Soundararajan Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased sole appellant vide order dated 20.12.2006 made in WAMP.No.1836/06) ... Appellants vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Dharmapuri. 3. The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri. ... Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, WA.No.787/2002 preferred to this Court against the order dated 25.07.2001 made in WP.No.15121/95 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of the impugned 4(1) Notification issued under G.O.(30)No.62, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 08.07.1994 as well as Section 6 Declaration issued under G.O.(3D)No.51, Backward and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 11.08.1995 issued by the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi For Respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader J U D G M E N T V.DHANAPALAN,J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2001 passed in W.P.No.15121 of 1995. 2. The lands in question have been registered in the name of one Lakshmi alias Rajalakshmi and her name finds place in the permanent land registers maintained by the Revenue Department. In respect of the said lands, acquisition proceedings were initiated and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued. After serving notice on the said Lakshmi under Section 5(A) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5(A) was conducted on 31.10.1994 and till then, no objection had been sent by the said Lakshmi. After the completion of the 5(A) enquiry and the submission of Report by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.10.1994 to the State Government, the said Lakshmi sent an objection belatedly on 18.11.1994 and it reached the hands of the Land Acquisition Officer only on 21.11.1994. In the objection, Lakshmi has stated that she is the owner of the land and she requires the land for herself and for her sons and that is the only land owned by her. But, she had not disclosed that the petitioners in the writ petition are also interested in the lands and that a preliminary decree has been passed by the Civil Court. 3. It was pointed out before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners had sent a representation to the local Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 1993 about the passing of a preliminary decree and for mutation of their names in the registry. The learned Single Judge, on a perusal of the material documents, finding nothing on record to show that such a representation has been sent by the petitioners, clearly held that in the failure of moving the authority concerned for mutation of their names or for deletion of Lakshmi alias Rajalakshmi in the revenue records, the petitioners do not have any ground to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings and accordingly, directed the land acquisition officer to consider the claims of the petitioners with respect to apportionment of compensation or for claiming higher compensation. The learned Single Judge also made clear that, if a request for reference under Section 18 of the Act is made after the award and within the time prescribed, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of the deceased 1st petitioner are on appeal before this court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The 2nd respondent, in the counter affidavit has clearly stated the reasons for acquiring the lands in question. It is his case that 167 families belonging to Vanniar Community of Dharmapuri Town are living in rented houses with great congestion and in order to relieve them from congestion and to help them live in a healthy area, house sites have to be provided to them and in the absence of any other suitable poramboke lands in the vicinity, the Department required land to an extent of 3.91.0 or 9.66 acres, pursuant to such necessity, 4(1) notification was issued for acquiring the lands in question. 5. According to the 2nd respondent, the learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that a representation had been sent by the petitioners to the local Revenue Divisional Officer. He has further stated that though the petitioners had a preliminary decree in their favour, they had not approached the Tahsildar concerned for mutation of their names or for deletion of the name, Lakshmi alias Rajalakshmi in the Revenue records and in such circumstances, they cannot allege that no notice was served to them, while actually, the land owner was Lakshmi alias Rajalakshmi as per the permanent register maintained by the Tahsildar. 6. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the finding of the learned Judge that there is nothing on record to show that a representation has been sent is contrary to the materials available on record, as the petitioners had made a representation dated 24.07.1993 regarding their right over the subject land and had also marked a copy of the same to the Tahsildar and the receipt of which has been vouched by postal acknowledgment. He further contended that the Deputy Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, by his proceedings dated 02.12.1997 directed change of patta for the subject lands in favour of the petitioners and one K.N.Krishnan, based on the representation of the petitioners pending at the relevant point of time and the same has not been taken note of by the authorities while initiating acquisition proceedings. 7a. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Judge ought to have seen that improper verification as to the ownership of the lands has resulted in non-inclusion of names of the writ petitioners and thereby no notice was served upon them, rendering the acquisition proceedings invalid in law in respect of the appellants. To support his case, learned counsel has relied on a Full Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1989 Madras 222 in the case of P.C.Thanikavelu vs. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras and another, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "6. It is not in dispute that in all cases where emergency provisions are not invoked and an enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under S.5-A of the Act is contemplated, the Collector causes individual notices to be served on every person known or believed to be interested in the land to be acquired. Normally, such notices are sent to persons whose names are found recorded in the revenue records as persons interested. But in several cases it may transpire that persons whose names are found recorded in the revenue records as interested persons may cease to have such interest by reason of transfers of the holding or otherwise. Neverthless, no mutation of names in the revenue records in favour of persons who have become interested in the land might have been effected. The result is that the Collector may cause individual notices to be served only on those persons whose names are found in the revenue records, but who have ceased to be interested in the land. The result is not far difficult to see. Such persons who have ceased to be interested in the land may not respond to the notice, nor would they care to participate in the enquiry to be held under S.5-A of the Act. In such cases, the statutory enquiry under S.5-A of the Act which has not been dispensed with, would be completed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the persons who have an existing right in the land under acquisition. Though it is incumbent upon the Revenue to keep their records up to date by effecting mutation of names reflecting the actual state of affairs by showing the persons really interested in the land in their records, yet in a few cases it may so happen that the revenue records are not made up to date and the person who is really interested in the land may not receive any notice from the Collector for the enquiry under S.5-A of the Act. In such cases, if it is brought to the notice of the Collector by the erstwhile land owner or by any other person including the present owner thereof, of the names of interested persons, the Collector as a statutory functionary cannot decline to afford an opportunity to the person who is really interested in the land and close the enquiry. When such information is brought to the notice of the Collector, it is needless to say that the principles of natural justice enjoin upon him an obligation to issue notice to the person who is found to be really interested in the land even though his name may not be found entered in the revenue records. It is true that the Government has the prerogative to acquire lands belonging to individuals for a public purpose sanctioned under the theory of 'eminent domain'. But the rule of law which governs and controls the executive functions in the thread that runs through the fabric of constitutional democracy, the rule of law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ behoves the Government to act fairly and reasonably and the principles of natural justice are the quintessence of such fair play and reasonableness." 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that though the appellants claim that they have sent a representation on 24.07.1993 to the Tahsildar concerned, there is no material on record to prove the same. Moreover, when the petitioners had a preliminary decree in their favour, they ought to have approached the Tahsildar concerned for mutation of their names; without doing so, the petitioners have claimed that no notice was served on them in respect of the land acquisition proceedings. In all, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have carefully examined the pleadings, documents, impugned judgment and the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. The only point that was raised by the appellants in the writ petition, on which the present appeal lies is that, they were not served with any notice before the issuance of 4(1) notification. Though the said question raised by the appellants was answered by the learned Single Judge, the same question is once again raised by the appellants in this appeal. Admittedly, the name of the land owner as found in the permanent register is shown as Lakshmi alias Rajalakshmi and a notice under Section 5-A has been served on her in respect of the land acquisition proceedings. Though she did not appear for the enquiry, she sent her objection belatedly on 18.11.1994 and in her objection, she did not disclose that the appellants were also interested in the subject land. The preliminary decree in favour of the appellants is not in dispute. While so, the appellants ought to have approached the Tahsildar concerned for mutation of their names in the revenue records. But, they claim that they have sent a representation dated 24.07.1993 to the Tahsildar regarding their right over the subject land. This court, on perusal of the records, finds that no such representation has been made by the appellants. In the absence of any representation by the appellants over their right in the subject land and in the absence of any approach to the authority concerned for mutation of their names in the revenue records, the Land Acquisition Authorities cannot be blamed for not serving a notice on the appellants before the initiation of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. 10. Even in the case of P.C.Thanikavelu, on which the appellants have placed strong reliance to defend their case, it was categorically held that notices are sent to persons whose names are found recorded in the revenue records as persons interested, but when there is no mutation of names in the revenue records in favour of persons who have become interested in the land, the Collector may cause individual notices to be served only on those persons whose names are found in the revenue records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Though a plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the Civil Court decree, the appellants have sent a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.07.1993, there is nothing on record to prove the same with acknowledgment. Even assuming that such a representation has been made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, he is not the authority competent to act on such representation. In the process of acquisition proceedings, it is the obligation on the part of the competent authority to look into the names of the persons in the revenue records and to comply with the provisions of the act in issuing notices. It is equally important that the person whose name is on record has to be given notice, as a owner or any person interested in the property. In the instant case, when the appellants have not taken any efforts for mutation of their names in the revenue records after the Civil Court decree, it is not the mandatory obligation on the part of the acquisition officer to issue notice to the appellants in the absence of their names being recorded in the revenue records. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot claim themselves as persons interested in the subject land and their allegation that improper verification as to the ownership of the lands resulting in non-inclusion of their names cannot be sustained. 12. It is seen that the purpose for which the lands were acquired was for providing house sites to the Vanniars of Dharmapuri Town as they are living in great congestion. In other words, the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings by the respondents is for the benefit of the general public. The interest of the general public cannot be defeated for the interest of an individual, when the claim made by the individual is inabsentia of proof. In several of its decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the concept of public purpose should include matters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare and prosperity of the community or public at large. Public purpose will include a person in which the general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is directly or indirectly involved. Therefore, individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public interest in respect of acquisition of land is concerned. 13. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar abe https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To : 1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Dharmapuri. 3. The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.68864. 1 cc To Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate, SR.68914. W.A.No.787 of 2002 SGL(CO) RVL 19.12.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/