Judgment:
ORDER
1. The writ petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the first petitioner's possession of 4.86 acres in S.Nos.6/11, 6/12, 6/13, 6/18, 6/19 and 6/20 of Mummudi Chozhagan village, Virudachalam Taluk, South Arcot District and the second petitioner's possession of 3.74 acres in S.Nos.6/1, 6/3, 6/4, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8 and 6/9 of Mummudi Chozhagan village, Virudachalam Taluk, South Arcot District, except in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that they are the brothers; that the lands morefully described in the writ petition measuring 4.86 acres falling under different Survey Numbers are belonging to the first petitioner and the other lands totally measuring 3.74 acres falling under different Survey Numbers are belonging to. the second writ petitioner that they having purchased the same under different sale deeds they are also respectively in possession and enjoyment of the same; that the said lands were originally assigned in favour of their vendors subject to the condition that for a period of ten years, the lands should not be sold in favour of others and they should be brought under cultivation within a span of five years and that only on compliance of those conditions, they purchased the said properties in outright sale; that there are also two houses and two casuarina trees all valuing Rs.2,60,000.
3. The petitioners would further submit that the first respondent Government issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to acquire the said lands belonging to the petitioners and exercising powers under Section 17 of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with; that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published; that the petitioners received a notice issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act requiring the petitioners to appear before the third respondent Tahsildar, who recommended the award of compensation to the petitioners; that all of a sudden, the Land Acquisition proceedings have been given up and the lands belonging to the petitioners are sought to be taken over by the respondents on the ground that as per the original conditions of assignment, the petitioners cannot claim the compensation; that on a misreading of the conditions in the deed of assignment, the respondents are now claiming that the petitioners should surrender the property without claiming anycompensation; that the respondents should determine the compensation payable under the provisions of the Act, pay just compensation and then only require the petitioners to surrender the land to Neyveli Lignite Corporation; that without paying the just compensation, the respondents cannot cancel the assignment and take over the property and that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession of the said lands and on such contentions, the petitioners would pray for the relief extracted supra.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it would be submitted that the petitioners have not cultivated any crop and the statement that the value of the houses and the casuarina trees is Rs.2,60,000 is totally false; that since the lands are not the patta lands of the petitioners, they were not included in the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the question of exercising power under-Section 17 of the Act does not arise at all; that the writ petitioners were not served with notices under the relevant provisions of the Act; that the lands were assigned with the special condition imposed in the assignment order that whenever the lands are required for Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited for mining proposes, the assignees should surrender the lands to the Government without claiming any compensation.; that since the lands were required for Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited for mining proposes, action was initiated to resume to the lands of the Government after issuing notices to the assignees and hence there is no question of determination as alleged by the petitioners; that the assignment was already cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam in his proceedings Ref.A4/7553/91, dated 7.2.92 that none of the rights of the petitioners, much less the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution are affected and that the petitioners, not being the original assignees, ought not have purchased these lands. On such and other grounds, the second respondent would pray for dismissing the writ petition with costs. This counter has been adopted by the first respondent by means of the adoption counter.
5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would not only make an oral representation but also would file the very copy of the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court, wherein the same question had been solved, delivered in R.Abdul Jabbar and other v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to and others, W.P.No.1677 of 1992, dated 14.10.96, 1996 T.L.N.J. 518. In the said decision, on similar facts and circumstances and under similar situation, the learned single judge, having a wide discussion on the subject in the context of the position of law and in the light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in (i) The Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, Sugar v. M.S.Seshagiri Rao and another, : [1968]2SCR892 and (ii) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. K.S.Ramachandra Rao and others, : AIR1972SC2224 , has arrived at the conclusion, as extracted hereunder:
'It is plain that the Government need not acquire its own lands, and the Government was not competent in the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to putforward its own title to the properties sought to be acquired, denying compensationto the persons entitled, having issued notifications specifying the lands and the names of owners/occupiers/persons interested. Thus under the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that whenever the Government waives to avail or invoke the condition of the grant or assignment, that a grantee or assignee Government without claiming compensation, and initiates proceedings for compulsory acquisition of such lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, treating such lands as not belonging to itself, but to others, is under an obligation to pay compensation as provided in the Act. Viewed in any way, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to proceed further with the acquisition of the lands in accordance with law.'
6. Since exactly the same situation that prevailed in the above cited case, R.Abdul Jabbar and other v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to and others, W.P.No.1677 of 1992, dated 14.10.96, 1996 T.L.N.J. 518 is prevalent in the case in hand since similar facts and circumstances and on one and the same question of law involved in both and further in consideration of the exact position of law that the learned single Judge on sound reasons has arrived at the decision cited supra this Court in perfect agreement with the said decision of the learned single Judge is adopting the same order and in terms of the above extracted portion of the said decision or me learned single Judge, the following order is made:
7. In result, the above writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to proceed further with the acquisition of the lands in accordance with law. However in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.