Government order on cancelling land acquisition upheld by High Court
Govt had acquired 0.79.5 hectares under the Land Acquisition Act
By : DC Correspondent
Update: 2014-08-17 06:22 GMT
Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld the order of the state government, passed in 2003, cancelling the land acquisition proceedings at Pachal village, Tirupathur taluk, Vellore district, meant for providing house sites pattas to Adi Dravidars. Justice B. Rajendran dismissed the petitions filed by S. Ramakrishnan and two others, which sought to quash the order of the Vellore collector, dated January 6, 2003.
The case of the petitioner was that the government had acquired 0.79.5 hectares under the Land Acquisition Act to provide house site pattas to Adi Dravidars. The land-owners’ petition against land acquisition was dismissed by the high court. However, their appeal was allowed by the court on the ground that the acquisition proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act were illegal. But the court gave liberty to the government to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act, 31 of 1978 to acquire the land. However, the government had cancelled the very acquisition proceedings, they added.
The judge said the order of cancellation of acquisition proceedings was passed in 2003. The petitioners have not taken any action for the past 11 years against the order. Further, as the patta has also been restored to the original owners, third party interest will definitely arise at this stage.
Therefore, as rightly pointed by government advocate V. Shanmugasundar, the petitions were not maintainable on the ground of laches itself.
Moreover, in the impugned order of cancellation, the government has specifically stated that as the cost has been fixed at Rs 85 lakh even at the time of acquisition proceedings, huge compensation has to be paid to the land-owners if they acquire the land and it will cause loss to the exchequer.
“Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have no right to opt for any particular land that, too, after making huge compensation to the land-owners by the government. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned impugned order passed by the government. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make fresh application before the government seeking allotment in any other lands,” the judge added.