Sri Raja Rajeswaraswamy Temple vs Government of Pondicherry

R. Sudhakar, J.—The Government of Pondicherry and the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Yanam have filed the miscellaneous petition

W.V.M.P. No. 359 of 2007 to vacate the interim order passed on 7.12.2005 in W.P.M.P. No. 40143 of 2005 whereby this Court ordered that

there will be an order of injunction of dispossession alone, if not already dispossessed.

Considering the nature of relief sought for and the short question that arises for consideration, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal

and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) were heard.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The present writ petition has been filed by the Archaka of the writ petitioner temple challenging the

Section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 1.4.2005 read with Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 17.10.2005.

In terms of the G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 1.4.2005, land to an extent of 01-36-00 hectares was sought to be acquired by the Government of

Pondicherry for the purpose of providing house sites to the landless labourers at Kursampeta in Adivipolam Revenue village. The Notification u/s

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") was issued. The Declaration in terms of

Section 6 of the Act has also been made and published.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the land which is sought to be acquired belongs to the writ petitioner temple. The income out of usufructure

is used for conducting the pooja. The petitioner archaka is serving the temple for the past five years and that the income ""derived from the

aforesaid land is the only source of income for performance of the pooja to the temple. When Section 4(1) Notification was issued, the writ

petitioner challenged the same in W.P. No. 14819 of 2005 and it was disposed off on 29.4.2005 at the time of admission stating that the court will

not interfere in the matter at that stage. However, the writ petitioner was permitted to give his objections to the authorities for their consideration

with further observation that petitioner can approach this Court in the event of a Declaration being made. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his

objection on 27.5.2005. Thereafter, the Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made. The writ petitioner states that on coming to know of the

Declaration made u/s 6 of the Act, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 7.10.2005, he has filed the present writ petition.

The contention of the learned cpunsel Smt.Usha Rani appearing for the writ petitioner is that the petitioner Archaka was not given notice u/s 5A

of the Land Acquisition Act and was not heard at the time of enquiry. The petitioner''s primary contention is that since no opportunity was given in

terms of Section 5A of the Act, the Declaration u/s 6 of the Act has to be quashed. The Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of the

Supreme Court in Kanpur Development Authority v. Mahabir Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 320. Reliance was also

placed on the decision of the first Bench of this Court in L. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, to contend that the Court has directed

the Government to take steps to remove encroachers and occupiers of public property and to ensure the ecological balance by maintaining Odai,

Ponds, Lakes, etc., free from encroachments. According to the writ petitioner, the land which is sought to be acquired, is a water body and

therefore, the State cannot acquire the land for providing house sites to the poor people.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in writ petition stating that the petitioner has not established his plea that he is the archaka

of the temple and therefore, he has no locus standi to prefer the present writ petition. Petitioner has no interest over the property sought to be

acquired. The temple is under the control of Hindu Religious Department and the property in question belongs to the temple managed by Board of

Trustees and which is under the control of the Hindu Religious Institution Commissioner, Puducherry. It is further stated that the temple is duly

represented by a Board of Trustees appointed as per the provisions of the Act. The notice as contemplated under the Act has been served on

them. The petitioner is not a ""person interested"" as per the provisions of the Act. Since the trustees have already represented before the competent

authorities, the question of giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner, so-called archaka does not arise. The purpose of acquisition is for

providing house sites for landless poor people, which is laudable venture on the part of the Government. In any event, for the acquisition of the

land, compensation will be paid to the temple. The lands which are sought to be acquired are ryotwari dry vacant land with some trees. The

respondents denied the contention of the writ petitioner that the land in question is a water body and the contention of the writ petitioner that the

respondents were trying to acquire a water body for the purpose of providing house site is specifically denied. Further, by proceeding dated

6.10.2002, the Hindu Religious Institution has given its approval for the acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of providing free house

sites to the landless poor. It is only, thereafter, the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued. After publication of the Notification u/s 4(1) of the

Act, notice was served on the President and the Members of the Board of Trustees on 20.4.2005 in terms of Section 5A of the Act. However,

there is no objection by the Trustees. After conclusion of the enquiry in terms of Section 5A of the Act, the Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made.

Further, in paragraph 11 of the counter, the claim of the writ petitioner, that he is the archaka of the temple, is specifically denied and the temple

authorities have considered his representation dated 27.5.2005 and his plea was rejected.

Learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) Shri T. Murugesan, appearing for the respondents referred to Section 5A of the Act and stated that

notice for hearing of objections should be served on the person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4(1) of the Act, so as to enable

him to file his objection on the proposed acquisition of land. The term ""person interested"" has been explained in Section 3(b) of the Act, which

reads as follows:

(b) the expression ""person interested"" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the. acquisition of land

under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;

The writ petitioner is not able to show how he claims to be a person interested except stating that he is an archaka of the temple for which he

has not shown any proof. In any event, the writ petitioner, who claims to be the archaka of the temple, has1 not placed any material to establish

that he has got right, title or interest over the property in question. The notice for hearing of objections contemplated u/s 5A of the Act has to be

issued to the ""person interested"" whose land is sought to be acquired. The writ petitioner, the so-called archaka, is neither owner of the property

nor is entitled to-claim or receive the compensation. In fact, the very plea of the writ petitioner that he is an archaka of the temple is disputed by the

authorities and his representation dated 27.5.2005 was considered and rejected. No material has been placed by the writ petitioner to show that

he is the archaka of the temple and as to how he is interested in land which is acquired.

Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner referred to the case in Kanpur Development Authority v. Mahabir Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Anr.

reported in (2005) 10 SCC 320. It is a case where the declaration issued Section 6 of the Act was quashed, on the ground that no opportunity

was given to the land owner in the enquiry in terms of Section 5A of the Act. In this case, as has been stated above, the writ petitioner has not

established that he is a person interested in claiming the compensation or that he is the owner of the land. Therefore, the said decision will not be

applicable to the facts of the present case.

Counsel for the writ petitioner also relied on the decision reported in L. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . It is a case relating to

a public interest litigation for removal of encroachment of Odai, Lake and water courses. The plea of the counsel for the writ petitioner is that the

land in question is a water body and therefore, the respondents cannot acquire the land. The pleading of the writ petitioner in his affidavit is that the

land in question is inam land yielding.income for the purpose of performing pooja to the temple and if the land is acquired, it will affect the income

of the temple, and in the performance of the pooja. On the same breath, the petitioner states that the land is a water body and therefore, it should

not be acquired. The plea of the writ petitioner is inconsistent. In any event, the respondents have disputed such a plea stating that it is a dry vacant

land with few trees. This is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.

The contention of the respondents that the writ petitioner, so-called archaka has no locus standi to file writ petition deserves to be accepted

inasmuch he has not shown any material to hold that he can be termed as owner of the land which sought to be acquired or a person interested to

receive compensation as envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

In view of the above position in law, even if this Court had given permission to the writ petitioner, the so-called archaka of the temple to give

his objection and to contest the Declaration, that by itself cannot be taken as a ground to state that he has got right over the property in question

and he should be heard in the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. In fact, he has given his objection on 27.5.2005 and it was considered. This Court

permitted him only to give his objections for consideration by the authorities which in this case has been done. The earlier order of this Court was

not passed on merits and the rival claims were not considered. The writ petitioner does not satisfy the requirement of law, as he is neither the ""land

owner"" nor a ""person interested"" and therefore, the petitioner has no right much less legal right to challenge the proceedings. Therefore, the writ

petition is not maintainable at the behest of the so-called archaka of the writ petitioner temple.

The writ petition has been filed objecting the laudable object of the State to provide land to landless poor and the petitioner has achieved his

object in stalling the project for quiet some time. The writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. In any event, questions of fact,

which are in dispute, cannot be canvassed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the W.P.M.P. No. 40144 of 2005 is also dismissed. The interim injunction granted

on 7.12.2005 in W.P.M.P. No. 40143 of 2005 is vacated and the same is dismissed. W.V.M.P. No. 359 of 2007 is allowed. No costs.