High Court · 2012

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated :: 19.06.2012CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice C.T. SELVAMW.P.Nos.9368,25180,27521,2752227523,12051,24678,24679,27886/2006&W.P.M.P.Nos.10359/2006,664/2011,2,2,2,2/2006,3,3,3/2006,1,1,1,1,1,1,1/2011,13654/2006,665/2011,1/2006G.GanammalG.EllappanG.LoganathanG.PerumalG.LakshmiG.Chandrasekar ...Petitioners in W.P.9368/2006C.Krishnappa Naickerrep.by her Power of AttorneyMr.R.Padamchand Jain ...Petitioner in W.P.25180/2006.KamalammalP.MariP.SundararamP.Shanmugam ...Petitioners in W.P.27521/2006Petitioner 1 to 4 Resp.by their Power of Attorney R.Padamachand Jain.GovindammalAdhilakshmiK.Ramalingam ...Petitioners in W.P.No.27522/2006.(Petitioners 1 to 3 rep.by their Power of Attorney G.Saravanaperumal.D.JayaramanJ.RavichndranJ.MohanJ.GurumoorthyJ.Muthu ...Petitioners in W.P.No.27523/2006.(Petitioners 1 to 5 rep.by their Power of Attorney G.Saravanaperumal)E.Pakthan V.Rani ...Petitioners in W.P.No.12051/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Valliammal ...Petitioner in W.P.24678/2006Saravana Perumal ...Petitioner in WP.24679/2006B. MAHAVEER CHAND BOHARA, S/O. BABULAL JAIN, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY G. SARAVANAPERUMAL, ...Petitioner in WP.27886/2006vs1 THE GOVT. OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI -9.2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, C.M.D.A., CHENNAI -8.3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT-I, C.M.D.A., CHENNAI -8....Respondents in all WPSWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for therecords in G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development (UD.III),Dated 09.03.1994, and quash the same in so far as the petitionersland is concerned and direct the respondents to restore the abovementioned land to the petitioner (in WP.9368/2006)(ii) issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for therecords in G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development (UD.III),Dated 09.09.1994, and quash the same in so far as the petitionersLand is concerned and direct the respondents to restore the Land inManjambakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk at Survey No.129/2 and 0.12.0hectare in survey No.130/1A measuring 0.05.0 hectare in toto 30cents, to the petitiners in WP 25180/2006.(iii) issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 148, Housing and urbandevelopment (U.D. III) dt. 09.03.1994 published in Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette dt 6.4.1994 and quash the same as illegal in sofar as the petitioners land is concerned and dirct the respondentsto restore the land in Manjambakkam village ambattur Taluk atSurvey No. 130/2 measuring (0.13.5 hectare ) 33 cents to thepetitioners in WP 27521/2006.(iv) issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsof the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 248 Housing and UrbanDevelopment (U. D. III) dt. 9.3.1994 published in Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Governent Gazette dt 6.4.1994 and quash the same as illegal in sofar as the petitiners land is concerned and direct the respondentsto restore the land in Manjambakkam village Ambattur Taluk at SureyNo. 134/3 and 0.05.5 hectare (14 cents) to the petitioners in (WP27522/2006)(v) Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsof the ist Respondent in G.O.Ms./No. 248 Housing and UrbanDevelopment (U.D.III) dt. 9.3.1994 published in Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette dt 6.4.1994 and quash the same in so far as thepetitiners land is concerned and direct the respondents to restorethe land in Manjambakkam village Ambattur Taluk at Surey No. 134/2measuring 0.06.0 hectare (1.5 cents) to the petitioners inW.P.27523/2006.(vi) Issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the recordsG.O.Ms No.248 Housing and Urban Development (UD-III) dated 9.3.1994published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 6.4.1994 and quashthe same in so far as the petitioners land is concerned and directthe respondents to restore the land in Manjambakkam village, AmbatturTaluk at Survey Nos.123/1c-0.02, 123/2C -0.00 (measurement inhectare) 124/2B-0, 0.025 131/4-0.01.5 132/1b part-0.05.0, 132/2b-0.06.0 133/1 -0.12.5 Total 0.30.0 hectare or 74 cents to thepetitioner in W.P.12051/2006.(vii) issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the recordsin G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development (UD-III) dated9.3.1994 published in Tamil Nadu Govenment Gazette dated 6.9.1994 andquash the same in so far as the petitioners land is concerned anddirect the respondents to restore the land in Manjambakkam Village,Ambatur Taluk at Survey Nos.130/3R1 measuring 20 cents and in surveyNo.130/1B measuring 12 cents to the petitionrs in W.P.No.24678 of2006.(viii) Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for therecords in GO Ms.248 Housing and urban Development (UD.III) Dated09.03.1994 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated06.09.1994 and quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitinersland is concerned and direct the respondents to restore the land inManjambakkam Village Ambattur Taluk at survey No.134/1 measuring 58cents (0.23.5 hecatre) to the petitioners. (in W.P.24679 of 2006)ix)Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records ofthe 1st Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 248 Housing & Urban Development(U.D. III) dated 09.03.1994 published in Tamilnadu Government Gazettedt. 06.04.1994 and quash the same as illegal in so far as thepetitioners land is concerned and direct the Respondents to restorethe land in Manjambakkam Village ambattur Taluk at Survey No. 130/3- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A2 measuring 0.03.5 and 130/3B2 measuring 0.03.0 hectare to thepetitioners. In (W.P.27886 of 2006)For petitioners : Mr.V.Selvaraj, for Mr.S.PackiarajFor respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Spl.G.P(W) assisted by Mr.N.Sakthivel Govt. Advocate for R1 Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan Adv.General for Mr.M.Karthikeyan , CMDA for R2 and R3 ORDERThese writ petitions challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act passed in G.O,Ms.248 Housing andUrban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994. 2. The total extent of land sought to be acquired under thescheme of acquisition is an extent of 14.3 acres. The petitioners arethe owners of 2.25 acres.3. Heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofMr.S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners andMr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General on behalf of therespondents.4. The scheme of acquisition relates to the formation of theinner ring road on the out skirts of Chennai. The same has beeneffected in three phases.5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners isthree fold. They are as follows:(1) The notification u/s 4(1) does not disclose the publicpurpose giving rise to the acquisition. It is therefore vague and badin law.(2) There is a time lag of beyond 60 days from the date ofnotification, date of publication in two local news papers and thedate of publication in the locality.(3) The publication in newspapers has not been effected in twodailies which are widely in circulation in the locality.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thechallenge to dismissal of writ petitions successfully was mounted inW.A.Nos.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999, (2001 (2) CTC 257), whereinunder orders dated 23.03.2001, a Division Bench of this court held https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that notification in G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 10.06.1991 interalia was bad on the ground ofvagueness. He would contend that the notification presently underchallenge also suffered on the same account (i.e) the same was vagueand therefore it necessarily would have to meet the same fate. Henext would contend that publication in newspapers have been effectedin Tamil dailies viz "Adhirstam" and "Kumari Murasu". The same werehardly papers of circulation in the locality. This court under ordersin W.P.No.13815 of 1995 dated 25.07.2002, ((2003) 1 M.L.J.378) heldthat when publication had been made in papers which were of not widecirculation, the same was not sufficient and hence the notificationwould fail. The appeal against such judgment preferred by the Statein W.A.No.3629 of 2004 stood dismissed. It is therefore contendedthat this court would have to follow the earlier decision holdingpublication in the abovesaid newspapers in the present case, bad inlaw and consequently hold that G.O.Ms.No.248 stood vitiated.7. Learned counsel next would contend that G.O.Ms.No.248,H&UD(UD.III) Department, was issued on 09.03.1994. The publication innewspapers had been effected in 'Kumari Murasu" and 'Adhirstam' dated15.06.1994 and the publication in the locality had been effected on30.06.1994. As per the decision of Division Bench of this courtrendered in W.A.No.946 of 1991 dated 09.12.1991, there should not bea long gap between the date of notification, date of publication innewspapers and the date of publication in the locality. It had beenheld that if the same was beyond a period of 60 days, it would beopen to challenge. Learned counsel would point out that it is in thelight of the said decision that amendment stands carried out tosection 4 under Tamilnadu Amendment Act 1996, providing that theentire process of issue of notification, publication in newspapersand publication in locality is to be completed within a period of 60days. Learned counsel would also refer to the decision of Apex courtreported in AIR 2007 SC 1151, Vyalikaval House Building Co-op Societyvs. V. Chandrappa and Ors, to inform that when Section 4 notificationunder the Land Acquisition Act was held to be bad, laches on the partof the parties would not come in the way of their being grantedrelief.8. Learned Advocate General, referring to the fact that landacquisition in respect of inner ring road project was effected inthree phases, informed that it was G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department, dated 10.06.1991 which was held to be bad onthe ground of vagueness. He would submit that G.O.Ms.No.248 i.eGovernment Order presently under challenge did not suffer anyvagueness. As against G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 10.06.1991 merely informing that the acquisitionwas "to wit for land assembly and development project along InnerRing Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O.Ms.No.248,H&UD (UD.III) Department, dated 09.03.1994,specifically informs "to wit, for development of residential andcommercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring road to ensureand regulate orderly development by Madras Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority under the project known as Land Assembly and Developmentproject along Inner Ring Road." 9. On the question of publication, learned Advocate Generalwould rely on the decision of the Apex court in 2011 1 SCC 330,Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A vs J. Sivaprakasamand others wherein it had been observed as follows:33.As both Madurai Mani and Kadiravan were soldand circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of theirtotal circulations was in Chennai, it may not bepossible to hold that the said newspapers were not`regional daily newspapers circulating in thelocality'. Nor will it be possible to invalidate theentire acquisition on the ground that the publicationin the said two newspapers did not fulfill requirementof publication in `newspapers circulating in thatlocality'. But if the respondents are able to assertand demonstrate that as a consequence, they weredenied the opportunity of participating in the enquiryunder Section 5A, or show any other disadvantage, theymay be able to achieve the object of showing that theacquisition proceedings were vitiated in so far astheir lands were concerned."Learned Advocate General would point out that petitioners in thewrit petitions had participated in the Section 5(A) enquiry andtherefore really had suffered no prejudice whatsoever. He wouldfurther submit that the publication in the locality had also beendone without much delay and the entire acquisition process was wellin order and did not provide any room for challenge.10. Learned Advocate General next would contend that enquiryproceedings had been concluded and an award was passed as early as on27.06.1997. The petitioner had chosen to challenge the same only inthe year 2006. Therefore, the petition would have to be dismissedalso on the ground of laches. In this regard he would rely on thedecision of this court reported in 2005 (3) CTC 1, Ramalingam andothers vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary to the IndustriesDepartment, which informs that challenges made to acquisitionproceedings after passing of the award would not be maintainablebefore this court.11. It is impressed upon this court that the entire areasurrounding the lands of the petitioners stand acquired without anyobjection, all such lands have been taken possession of and in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reality the petitioners would now have no separate access to theirrespective properties. The project, which would serve the largerpublic interest was ready to be implemented and the pendency of thepresent writ petitions was the only impediment thereto. Informingthat private interest would have to give way to larger publicinterest, he would seek dismissal of the writ petitions. LearnedAdvocate General placed heavy reliance on the decision of DivisionBench of this court in W.A.No.503 of 2006, CDJ 2009 MHC 5871,S.Kesavan and Another vs. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,MMDA, Chennai & Others.12. I have considered the rival submissions. In decision of thiscourt in W.A.No.503 of 2006 the distinction between G.O.Ms.No.958,Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.06.1991, which wasinvalidated under judgment of this court and the presentG.O.Ms.No.248 stands well drawn in the following words:'23.The learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants would urge that similar notification whichwas the subject matter of the challenge in WritAppeal Nos.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999 has beenquashed by the Division Bench of this Court in 2001(2) CTC page 257 (cited supra) and the challenge madeto the said order by way of SLP having beendismissed, the present acquisition proceedings arealso liable to be quashed. As already held above, inthe above cited decision, the notification read that"To wit for Land Assembly and Development Projectalong Inner Ring Road by Madras MetropolitanDevelopment Authority". A perusal of the 4(1)Notification which is the subject matter of challengein this proceedings would disclose that the lands inquestion are sought to be acquired " for developmentof residential and commercial neighbourhood on bothside of the Inner Ring Road"..... Therefore, itcannot be said that the said notification is vagueand the appellants having understood the purpose ofthe acquisition had submitted their objections andalso participated in the 5A Enquiry.'13. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has urged beforeus that the publication in newspapers had been found wanting injudgments of this court in writ petition as confirmed inW.A.No.3629/2004 and therefore the notification in G.O.Ms.No.248would have to fail, we find that in dealing with this particularaspect the Division Bench in the decision cited supra has observed asfollows:28. In reply to the submissions made by thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the CMDA, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned senior counsel appearing for the appellantswould submit that G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, (UD-III) dated 9.3.1994, issued for thesimilar purpose has been quashed by this Court andthe judgment reported in 2003(1) MLJ page 378 -Mrs.Revathy Mohan alias Dhanalakshmi vs. State ofTamil Nadu and others, on the ground that Rules 4(b)and ) of Land Acquisition Rules have not beenfollowed and the publication has been effected inTamil Dailies which were not having widercirculation in the locality. While quashing thenotification, this Court in the said decision, hadgranted liberty to initiate acquisition proceedingsafresh in terms of the Land Acquisition Rules.29. It is stated by the Chief Executive Officerof CMDA in the above said affidavit that in respectof land acquisition which was subject matter of thechallenge in the above cited decision, CMDA istaking steps through Tahsildar to issue a freshnotification under Section 4(1) of the said Act.30. This Court after taking into considerationthe affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer, CMDAand the submissions made by the learned StandingCounsel for CMDA and the learned senior counselappearing for the appellants, is of the consideredopinion that the lands in question along with otheracquired lands in Phase-III are going to be utilisedfor the public purpose to develop Truck ParkingTerminal which would ultimately ease the trafficcongestion in Chennai City. The said purpose in anyevent cannot be said as "non-public purpose".Eventhough similar notification has been quashed bythis Court in the judgment reported in 2003(1) MLJ378 (cited supra), this Court has granted liberty tothe Respondents to issue 4(1) notification afresh interms of Act and Rules and it is averred by theChief Executive Officer, CMDA in his affidavit thatthe steps are being taken to issue a fresh Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the benefit of theabove cited decision cannot be extended to theappellants."We are in respectful agreement with the above observations.Dealing with the question of laches, we would have to inform thatlaches would not stand in the way of the petitioners only if Section4(1) notification of the Land Acquisition Act, is found to be bad inlaw. Such is not the case here. In decision of this court in,Ramalingam and others vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Industries Department, (2005 (3) CTC 1), it has been held thatchallenge after the award would not be maintainable.14. We find ourselves in absolute agreement with the submissionsof the learned Advocate General that larger public interest wouldhave to prevail over individual rights and we find no reasonwhatsoever to interfere with the acquisition proceedings initiatedunder G.O,Ms.248 Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated09.03.1994.15. The writ petitions necessarily would fail. Accordingly, thewrit petitions shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.To1.The SecretaryGovt of TamilnaduUrban and Housing DevelopmentSt.George Fort, Chennai-92.The Member SecretaryCMDA,Chennai-83.The Special TahsildarLand acquisition Unit 1,CMDA, Chennai 82 ccs to Mr.S. Packiaraj, Advocate, Sr. 345282 ccs to Mr.M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, sr. 347121 c to Government Pleader, Sr. 34876W.P.Nos.9368,25180,27521,2752227523,12051,24678,24679,27886/2006&W.P.M.P.Nos.10359/2006,664/2011,2,2,2,2/2006,3,3,3/20061,1,1,1,1,1,1/2011,13654/2006,665/2011,1/2006TRM (CO)kk,km,sra,sr,pmk 10/8