HC help sought to ensure excess land acquired is provided only to landless

A division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad before whom the plea came up for hearing on Monday, adjourned the plea to after vacation before directing the petitioner to produce additional documents to substantiate his case.

The petitioner M Narendran of R A Puram has submitted that 95.74 acres of lands belonging to Thiruvalargal Kasthuri Estate in Kancheepuram was notified as surplus lands and were acquisitioned for public purpose in 1979 under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

Thereafter, in 1998 the surplus lands were assigned to several beneficiaries under the Tamil Nadu (Disposal of surplus Lands) Rules, 1965. But in 2009, the assigned lands were resumed and the assignment to the beneficiaries were cancelled stating that the lands were required for yet another alleged public purpose under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965.

Following this, one of the beneficiaries Karpagam who was allotted an acre out of the 95.74 acres of land had challenged the cancellation in 2012 as the nature of public purpose was stated while taking back the given land. While the order of resumption and cancellation was quashed and the assignment of land in her favour to the extent of one acre stood confirmed, the Directorate of Land Reforms took up a series of appeals and the Supreme Court in turn ruled in favour of Karpagam.

However, while the order of stay was operating, a foundation stone was laid in the said land for commencement of the construction of the bus stand project, a contempt notice was issued, and proceedings initiated before the Supreme Court.

Based on factual matrix of the case and that the Land Reforms Act only contemplates acquisition of excess land and distribution of the same to landless and other persons eligible under the Act and Rules this, the present public interest litigation plea has been moved, the petitioner noted.

He also contended the only public purpose contemplated under the Act is obtaining excess land and distributing the same to the landless, the State government cannot acquire lands under the Land Reforms Act and use them for a bus terminus claiming it to be a public purpose within the ambit of the Land Reforms legislation.