The CommissionerCorporation of ChennaiRipon BuildingsChennai – 600 003 v. St.George

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.06.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAW.A.No.2486 of 1999The CommissionerCorporation of ChennaiRipon BuildingsChennai – 600 003... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.1. Budhmal Jain (died)2. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.3. Shanthilal4. Gyan Prakash5. B.Padam Kumar (R3 to R5 are substituted as LRs of the deceased first respondent by order dated 27.8.2003 made in WAMP.No.4012/2003).. Respondents/Petitioner &Ist Respondent PRAYER: Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.1999made in W.P.No.10349 of 1997.W.P.No.10349 of 1997: Petition presented to this Court under Article226 of ;the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in hisreference No. G.O.Ms.Ni. 90/Municipal Administration & Water SupplyDepartment, dated 11/4/97 and quash the same and direct the secondrespondent to reconvey the property comprised in RS.No. 2329 in OldDoor No. 78, New Door No. 85 Big Street, Trplicane, chennai - 600 005pursuant to the order of the firs respondent in his reference No. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O.Ms. No. 222/Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department dated6.11.1995. For Appellant:Mr.R.BharathidasanFor Respondents:Mr.A.Thiagarajanfor R3 to R5Mr.G.SankaranSpl. Government Pleaderfor R2 J U D G M E N T(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judgedated 16.9.1999 made in W.P.No.10349 of 1997, whereunder G.O.Ms.No.90,Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997,cancelling the order of reconveyance of land made by G.O.Ms.No.222,Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.11.1995, wasquashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, viz.,for want of opportunity before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.90, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997.2. The facts in brief, relevant for the disposal of this appeal areas under. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties asthey are arrayed in the writ petition.2.1. The land of an extent of 3850 Sq.ft. located at Door No.85, BigStreet, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005, which was originally acquired fromthe petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (forbrevity, "the Act") for the purpose of construction of a School was,concededly, reconveyed in favour of the petitioner by G.O.Ms.No.222,Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.11.1995exercising the power conferred under Section 48B of the Act.2.2. It is not in dispute that, thereafter, without giving any noticeto the petitioner, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.90, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997, which waschallenged in the writ petition, cancelled the G.O.Ms.No.222, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.11.1995 reconveyingthe land to the petitioner.2.3. The learned Single Judge, observing that the grievance of thepetitioner and the relief sought for in the writ petition lie within anarrow compass, viz., the G.O.Ms.No.90, Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department, dated 11.4.1997 cancelling the reconveyance of land tothe petitioner suffers for violation of principles of natural justice, forwant of notice to the petitioner before cancelling the order ofreconveyance, quashed G.O.Ms.No.90, Municipal Administration and Water https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997, which necessitated the secondrespondent to prefer the above appeal.3. Mr.R.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the second respondentstrenuously contends that:(i) since the impugned land is required for construction of aCorporation School, and as such public interest is involved, thereis no need to issue a notice to the petitioner before issuingG.O.Ms.No.90, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,dated 11.4.1997 cancelling the order of reconveyance, and that theprinciples of natural justice need not be stretched to that extentaffecting the public interest; and(ii) in any event, the petitioner is not prejudiced by non issuanceof notice before passing G.O.Ms.No.90, Municipal Administration andWater Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997 cancelling the order ofreconveyance.4. We are unable to appreciate the contention made on behalf of thesecond respondent for the simple reason that once the order ofreconveyance is made by G.O.Ms.No.222, Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department, dated 6.11.1995 it confers a vested right on thepetitioner with respect to the impugned land. Assuming the Government iscompetent and entitled to withdraw the order of reconveyance, laying theirhands on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states thatthe power to grant includes the power to add, amend, vary or rescind, suchpower also shall be exercised only in the manner known to law, but notarbitrarily or unreasonably violating the principles of natural justice.5. The learned counsel for the second respondent brought to ournotice that after two weeks of passing of the G.O.Ms.No.222, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.11.1995 grantingreconveyance of land in favour of the petitioner, the same was suspendedand that cancellation of reconveyance of land to the petitioner is,therefore, not arbitrary or unreasonable. In our considered opinion, thesaid submission would not make any difference because the order ofreconveyance made by G.O.Ms.No.222, Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department, dated 6.11.1995 confers a vested right on thepetitioner, which cannot be withdrawn bypassing the principles of naturaljustice, as it is trite that natural justice is the essence of fairdecision, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked asfundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justiceis the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Besides, natural justice isan inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even saidthat the principles of natural justice must be read into occupiedinterstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to thecontrary. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent also submitted thatthe very reconveyance of land to the petitioner was unreasonable as theland acquired is still required for the public purpose, viz., for theconstruction of School, and that there is no error or illegality incancelling such illegal order of reconveyance. 7. At this juncture, we make it clear that we are not going into themerits or demerits of the order of reconveyance, much less thecancellation of reconveyance, as it is a settled law that after theacquisition proceedings the land vests with the Government and theGovernment has got every right to take appropriate decision in the mattereither to reconvey the land or to refuse reconveyance, but the pertinentissue that arises for our consideration in this appeal is having taken adecision to cancel the reconveyance of land granted to the petitioner,whether the Government can dispense with the issue of notice beforecancellation of reconveyance? Answering in negative, we dismiss the writappeal, however giving liberty to the second respondent to pursue thematter with the Government to take appropriate decision in the matter, ifthe impugned land is still required for public purpose. No costs.sasiSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The SecretaryGovernment of Tamil NaduMunicipal Administration andWater Supply DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner,Corporation of Madras,Rippon Buildings,Madras. 600 003.+ One cc to Mr. A. Thyagarajan, Advocate SR 34612+ One cc to Government Pleader SR 34835SMV (co)sg 21/6/07W.A.No.2486 of 199914.6.2007