IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.46881 of 2002 V.Vellaiyan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Collector, Cuddalore. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition 2, Neyveli – 2. Cuddalore District. 3.Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Rep. By its General Manager, (L.A.), Neyveli Township, Neyveli – 7. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay the compensation to the petitioner by passing the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for his acquired lands located in S.No.34/1, measuring to an extent of 2.75 acres at Mummudi Cholagan Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District, pursuant to 4(1) notification published on 04.04.1990 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in G.O.Ms.No.274, Industries (MIA-2), dated 12.03.1990 and declaration under Section 6(1) was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 20.11.1990 in G.O.Ms.No.1308 and the same was published in Tamil News Paper Daily Thanthi dated 07.12.1990. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kannan for Mr.S.Selvaraju For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, AGP, for R1 & R2 Mr.N.A.K.Sarma for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner was assigned with a land in S.No.34/1, having an extent of 2.75 acres at Mummudicholagan Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, by the Government of Tamil Nadu in old patta No.310, New No.309. After the assignment, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by cultivating the same and paying the kist for all these years. Whileso, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken steps to acquire the lands during the year 1990 by issuing 4(1) notification published on 04.04.1990 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, followed by 5-A enquiry held on 28.06.1990 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After acquiring the petitioner's land, the same have been developed for mining activities by the third respondent-Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Similarly, the respondents have also acquired large extent of lands in R.S.Nos.6/1, 6/3, 6/4, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8, 6/9, 6/11, 6/12, 6/13, 6/18, 6/19, 6/20, as per the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.1126/2003, dated 23.03.2000, for the reason that the above said lands were also located within 400 meters of the petitioner's land. Besides, the third respondents have acquired a huge extent of 91 hectares of land located in Melpappanapattu Village, which is within 1 k.m. and other lands in Seplanatham, that are located within 2 kms. and the lands in Periyakurichi located within 3 kms from the petitioner's land were also acquired and the compensation amount were also paid by the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 05.06.1998. When the respondents have paid the compensation to all other lands, but only in the case of the petitioner, though they have acquired the lands, till now, no compensation was paid. Therefore, the petitioner made number of representations demanding payment of compensation, but no reply whatsoever was sent by the respondents. However, the petitioner sent two more representations dated 06.01.1995 and 25.10.1999 to the first respondents with a copy to the second respondent and various authorities including the Home Minister. Yet, again, no response came from any one of them. As a result, the petitioner, left with no other option, has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the land was assigned with the petitioner by assignment order No.A4/7708/92, admittedly, he became the owner of the land in respect of Survey No.34/1, therefore, the respondents have to pay the payment of compensation for the land they have acquired from the petitioner. Secondly, there was no proper order passed by the respondents at any point of time seeking to cancel the petitioner assignment, followed by any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry. On that basis, it was contended by that since the land in question has become the petitioner's land, the respondents, without issuing any notice or holding enquiry, cannot take back the land without paying the compensation. 3. In respect of his compensation, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of R.Abdul Jabbar and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1996 TNLJ 518) for a preposition that an assignee is entitled to receive the compensation even if the assigned land was acquired by the Government without following the procedure known to law. 4. In his further submission, he has also relied upon yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. K.S.Ramachandra Rao and Others (AIR 1992 SC 2224) for a preposition that even though the land is assigned in favour of an assignee with a condition that no compensation would be paid if the land is required for public purpose as notified in the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, the parties are entitled for payment of compensation. With the aforesaid submissions and decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as it is barred by limitation of 10 years delay, Further, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has completely concealed that, what is the nature of the land assigned to the petitioner and under what obligation the respondents are liable to pay the compensation, have been deliberately suppressed. Though the petitioner was assigned with the land in question in Survey No.34/1, having an extent of 2.75 acres by assignment order No.A4/7708/92, with a clear and explicit written condition by the Government of Tamil Nadu that the petitioner has to surrender the possession of the assigned land, without demanding any compensation, as and when the same is required for mining activities of the Corporation, the respondents 1 and 2, after some time, initiated acquisition proceedings in terms of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the patta lands in the Village of Mummudicholagam Village and neighbouring villages by issuing 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act. But, the Land Acquisition Officer inadvertently included the petitioner's land, subsequently, the said mistake was detected. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, had issued a proceeding No.A4/7708/92, dated 25.11.1992, cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner, after complying with the requisite procedures and thereafter, an award was also passed with respect to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notified lands in 1994. But, the Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the award, has not mentioned the subject land. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that he, being the one of the assignee, is entitled to get the compensation. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, on 06.07.2011, directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the original records in order to find out whether the Government has cancelled the order of assignment. As per the direction of this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the relevant records. A careful reading of the original file disclosed the entire controversies raised in the present writ petition. It is seen that, a notice in proceedings No.A4/7708/92, dated 30.06.1992, was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment should not be cancelled. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has not submitted his explanation, expressing any objection for cancellation of the assignment order. Thereafter, another proceedings passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.O.A4/7708/92, dated nil-9-1992 shows that the Tahsildar of Virudhachalam was directed to instruct VAO, Mudicholagan Village to appear in his office in order to get the notice served for passing appropriate order, and in turn, the Tahsildar, Virudhachalam, in his proceedings No.A6/826/92, dated 03.11.1992, replied that the parties have refused to receive the notices for cancellation of the assignment order, therefore, it was necessitated to affix those notices at the doors of the concerned parties. A copy of the proof for affixing such notices were also sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam for further action. Another proceeding No.Na.Ka.A4/7708/92, dated Nil-11-92 shows that the order of assignment has already been cancelled, asking several assignees including the petitioner to return the land in Survey No.34/1, having an extent of 2.75 acres of land. 8. That apart, an acknowledgement with regard to the notice received by the advocate of the land owner, namely, the petitioner herein, shows that the petitioner's has sent his objection to the notice dated 30.06.1992, wherein the petitioner has requested for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has received the notice dated 30.06.1992. Another important fact needs attention is that the petitioner's lawyer Mr.S.Manavalan, M.A.B.L., has not only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ represented on behalf of petitioner, but also other assignees, namely, Ramasamy S/o Kanjan, Chinnathambi S/o Kanjan, Maruthappan S/o Anjapuli, Rasangam S/o. Anjapuli, Durai S/o Veeramuthu and Karuppan S/o Anjapuli. But, unfortunately, the petitioner has concealed all these facts in his writ petition alleging that the respondents gravely erred in cancelling the assignment without any notice and enquiry. Therefore, by concealing all these facts, the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation in respect of the land in question on the ground that no notice was issued, is not legally maintainable. 9. Further, when this is an admitted case of the petitioner that he was issued with a conditional assignment order by the Government of Tamil Nadu with a specific condition to the petitioner to surrender possession of the assignment land without demanding any compensation, as and when the same is required for mining activities of the Corporation, after receiving the notice dated 30.06.1992, the petitioner should not have filed the present writ petition on the ground that the assignment order was wrongly cancelled without any notice and enquiry. Having received the cancellation order in November, 1992, till date, the petitioner has not come forward to challenge the correctness of the order cancelling the original assignment. But, on the contrary, the petitioner, suppressing all the above facts and keeping quite for almost 10 years, has wrongly filed the present writ petition, claiming possession of the land in question, as though the petitioner's lands were acquired without following the procedure known to law. Moreover, a judgment relied on by the petitioner in R.Abdul Jabbar's case (cited supra) does not apply to the case on hand, since that judgment deals with different issue. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is not only deserved to be dismissed on the ground of latches, but also on the ground of suppressing the factual position in issuance of notice, followed by a cancellation of the order of assignment. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which shall be paid to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, High Court Building, Chennai. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. After pronouncement of the order, Mr.S.Selvaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pleaded this Court not to impose the costs of Rs.10,000/- by stating that the petitioner is already a man without means, not even able to eke out his livelihood. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Considering the said submission, this Court is inclined to accept to the plea and accordingly, the portion directing payment of cost is hereby recalled. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Regitrar rkm To 1.The Collector, Cuddalore. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition 2, Neyveli – 2. Cuddalore District. 3. The General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, (L.A.), Neyveli Township, Neyveli – 7. 4. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Cour, Madras. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.58616 1 CC to Mr. S.Selvaraju Advocate, SR.58313 1 CC to Mr.N.A.K.Sarma, Advocate, SR.58230 W.P.No.46881/2002 ng[co] gp/7.10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/