9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land owner is to get compensation and there is no inherent right for the land owner to seek to quash the land acquisition proceedings and consequently reclaim his property. In the present case, we notice that Sec.4(1) notification was dated 17.11.2009 subsequently Sec.6 declaration was also made on 14.12.2009 and the award also came to be passed within one year viz., on 16.06.2010. It is also the specific case of respondents that possession was also taken on 25.02.2010. Writ Petition came to be filed only in April 2011, contending that petitioner company had no notice of the acquisition proceedings. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the name of the petitioner company is reflected in the encumbrance certificate and they are the rightful owners of the subject lands even before the acquisition proceedings commenced and therefore they are entitled to notice as a matter of right. Though this argument may sound attractive, unfortunately in the light of the fact that the revenue records were only in the name of erstwhile owner on the date of acquisition proceedings, such a contention that the petitioner's company name is reflected in the encumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Honourable Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji For the Appellant : Mr.M.S.Seshadri For the Respondents : Mr.A.Tamilvanan, AGP(P) for R1 to 3, Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, Senior Standing counsel And Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar Junior Standing counsel for R4 and 5 JUDGMENT P.B.BALAJI, J. The Writ Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Writ Petitioner who approached this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 17.11.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 04.12.2009. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for effective adjudication of the Writ Appeal are as follows: The Writ Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, owning lands in Kirumambakkam Village, Bahour Commune, Puducherry, having purchased the same for valuable sale consideration. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner applied for transfer of patta in its name which came to be rejected by the Tahsildar, Bahour. An appeal was preferred before the District Collector who remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for reconsideration. One Mr.Kannan filed a suit before the District Court, Puducherry disputing the petitioner's title over the property. However th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same day. A date was fixed for award enquiry and the petitioner did not appear for the same. Subsequently, the award came to be passed on 16.06.2010 and due notice under Sec.12(2) was also served on the petitioner on 12.10.2010. As a notice of attachment had been received from the Income Tax department, the Land Acquisition Officer paid 80% of the compensation amount to the Income Tax department towards income tax dues of the petitioner. It is also stated that all notices were duly served as per the revenue records and since the erstwhile owner's name alone was reflected, notices were issued to the concerned person. Therefore, the 3rd respondent sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The learned single Judge, after carefully considering the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the State dismissed the Writ Petition, finding that the claims of the petitioner that no notices were served were incorrect and the invocation of the urgency clause being justifiable. The learned single Judge also noted the fact that possession of the land was taken on 25.02.2010 itself and there is no pre-notification delay as contended by petitioner. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land acquisition proceedings and consequently reclaim his property. In the present case, we notice that Sec.4(1) notification was dated 17.11.2009 subsequently Sec.6 declaration was also made on 14.12.2009 and the award also came to be passed within one year viz., on 16.06.2010. It is also the specific case of respondents that possession was also taken on 25.02.2010. The Writ Petition came to be filed only in April 2011, contending that petitioner company had no notice of the acquisition proceedings. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the name of the petitioner company is reflected in the encumbrance certificate and they are the rightful owners of the subject lands even before the acquisition proceedings commenced and therefore they are entitled to notice as a matter of right. 11. Though this argument may sound attractive, unfortunately in the light of the fact that the revenue records were only in the name of erstwhile owner on the date of acquisition proceedings, such a contention that the petitioner's company name is reflected in the encumbrance certificate cannot be countenanced. It is the duty of the petitioner company to have the revenue re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
