Chennai: Observing that the manner of re-occupying the acquired land again and again and then seeking relief in multiple proceedings is gross abuse of process of the court, the Madras high court has dismissed a petition of a similar nature and imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 on the petitioner.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M. Sundar dismissed a petition filed by R. Gunasekaran, challenging an order of the Erode district collector in respect of the proceedings against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.
Lands were acquired by authorities in Anthiyur village in Erode district from several persons including the petitioner and an award was passed in March 1990. However, the petitioner re-occupied the acquired land, resulting in authorities initiating proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act.
Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession was never taken over of the land in accordance with law and thus, in view of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, if either of the two eventualities specified, possession not taken over or compensation not deposited, the land stands released from the acquisition proceedings, he added.
Pointing out the earlier finding of the court that the possession was taken over while dismissing a petition from the petitioner for re-conveyance of the land, Special government pleader submitted that the petitioner once again entered into the land and obtained an interim injunction preventing the authorities from distributing the sites to 51 families of barbers and 44 families of washermen.
The bench said in its view the petitioner and two others have encroached on the land and section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, was not for the protection of such persons.
“In our view, the findings in the impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the petitioner is not an encroacher on the land, but that he is the owner, whose land was acquired and possession was not taken over. The possession was taken over and the petitioner has encroached on the land. We are, thus, of the view that this manner of re-occupying the acquired land again and again and then seeking relief in multiple proceedings is gross abuse of process of law of the court and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order”, the bench added.
