P. Velraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05-01-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARANWRIT APPEAL Nos.2658 to 2664 OF 2002P. Velraj,S/o. Pandiyan Nadar..Appellant in WA.2658/02M. Rajee,S/o. Manipillai..Appellant in WA.2659/02S. RaviS/o.R. Subbian..Appellant in WA.2660/02K. MohanS/o. Kistappa Naidu..Appellant in WA.2661/02Rep by power Agent L.S.ThilagavathiR. PrabuS/o. Raja Pandi Nadar..Appellant in WA.2662/02Rep by Powr Agent S. Selvaraj* P. Gnana Pragasam..Appellant in WA.2663/02P.V. Ekambaram..Appellant in WA.2664/02Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.3. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Chengalpattu District, Ashok Nagar, Shopping Complex, Chennai 600 083. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Executive Engineer, Special Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 002.5. P. Asirvatham, S/o. Ponusamy 6. A. Devaneethi S/o.P. Asirvatham Respondents 5 & 6 impleaded as Respondents vide order of Court dated 5.11.2004 in WAMP.Nos.7127 to 7133 of 2004.. Respondents in all WasWrit Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe common order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the learned single Judgein W.P.Nos.19030, 19033, 19036, 19035, 19034, 19032 and 19031 of 1999respectively.Petitions presented under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue writs of Declaration, declaring that the Respondentsare not entitled to treat the lands of the petitioner in 1.Plot Nos.11 and 12 to an extent of 4365.Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19030/99)2.Plot Nos.1,2and 3 to an extent of 7919. Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19033/99)3.Plot Nos.4 and 5 to an extent of 6280 Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19036/99)4.Plot No.10 to an extent of 3998. Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19035/99)5.Plot Nos.13 and 14 to an extent of 4502.Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19034/99)6.Plot Nos.6 and 7 to an extent of 5030. Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19032/99)7.Plot Nos.8 and 9 to an extent of 5155. Sq. ft (in W.P.No.19031/99)respectively comprised in Survey Nos.483, 485 and 486 MogappairVillage, Anna Nagar, Saidapet Taluk as covered under the notificationissued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act made inG.O.No.261, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.10.1975and the consequent declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act dated 9.11.1978 which has been quashed by the SupremeCourt in their order dated 21.8.1990.For Appellants: Mr.M. Venkaktachalapathy Senior Counsel for Mr.M. SriramFor Respondent-1: Mr.A. Arumugam, AGP Respondents 2to4: Mr.K. Chelladurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Respondents 5&6 : Mr.K.V. Subramaniam SC for Mr.S. PunniyakottiCOMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JAll these writ appeals are directed against the commonorder passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19030 to 19036 of1999 dated 15.10.2001. Since the questions raised in these writappeals are same, all the appeals were heard together and shall begoverned by the present common judgment.2. The appellants in all these appeals claim that on22.7.1997 they purchased lands on the basis of the registered saledeed executed by the power of attorney holder of the original ownerof the lands, namely, P. Asirvatham, relating to Survey Nos.483, 485and 486 at Mogappair Village. The lands purchased by the appellantsas well as several other lands belonging to different persons werecovered under Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", inG.O.Rt.No.261 Housing and Urban Development Department dated23.10.1975. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on9.11.1978. The present dispute is confined to Survey Nos.483 and485. Some of the land owners had challenged the land acquisitionproceedings. A Division Bench of this Court had set aside thedeclaration made under Section 6 of the Act by order dated 8.1.1988,but notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had been kept intact.However, the land owners had taken the matter to the Supreme Courtcontending that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act shouldhave been quashed. By order dated 21.8.1990, while allowing suchappeals of the land owners, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-"The State has not challenged the order of the HighCourt and the land owners are the petitioners before thisCourt. The short question raised is that the Tamil NaduAmendment to the Land Acquisition Act which came into forcein 1967 required the declaration to be made within threeyears from the date of the preliminary notification. Onthe date the declaration was made there were hardly twodays left for completion of three years and after the HighCourt's order on 8.1.1988, the period has already lapsedbut no declaration has been published and the same can nolonger be made on the basis of preliminary notification atpresent. In the absence of challenge by the State, theorder of the High Court against it has become final. We are of the view that in these circumstances itwould no more be available to the State to make the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requisite declaration under section 6 of the Act. Theacquisition itself is quashed but we make it clear that itis open to the State Government in case it is satisfiedthat acquisition is necessary in public interest, it isfree to exercise its power of eminent domain and make afresh preliminary notification. The Special LeavePetitions are disposed of accordingly."3. Certain other land owners, including the original ownerof the land now in dispute, had filed several writ petitions. Theoriginal land owner of the present disputed land had filedW.P.No.2879 of 1983. In all those writ petitions the prayer was tothe following effect :- "... To issue a writ of declaration or such otherappropriate writ or order declaring that the words "at thedate of the publication of the notification under Section 4Sub-section 1" of Section 23(1) firstly of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 as unconstitutional as being contraryto Second Proviso of Article 31(A) of the Constitution anddirect the 2nd respondent to calculate and pay compensationfor the petitioner's agricultural lands in ChengalpattuDistrict, Saidapet Taluk, Mogappair village, which areagricultural lands under the petitioner's cultivation onthe basis of the market value prevailing on the date ofpayment of compensation."4. Subsequently, by way of amendment, in alternative, thepetitioners claimed compensation not less than the market value as onthe date of the award. Such batch of writ petitions, includingW.P.No.2879 of 1983 were dismissed by the common judgment dated22.7.1994. In the present batch of writ petitions, which have beenfiled by the alleged subsequent purchasers, the main contention wasto the effect that since notification under Section 4(1) of the Acthad been quashed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 21.8.1990and since no fresh notification under Section 4(1) had been issued,it must be taken that the land continued to remain with the originalowner P. Asirvatham and, therefore, the petitioners sought fordeclaration that the land purchased by the petitioners should not betreated as part of the land acquired.5. The learned single Judge repelled the contention of thepetitioner by relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court inW.A.Nos.1144 and 1145 of 1996 dated 17.1.1997 and by observing thatthe decision of the Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.11353 to 11355 of 1988,whereunder the notification under Section 4(1) was quashed, relatedto the property of the land owners who had filed appeal before theSupreme Court. As a matter of fact, the following observation ofthe Division Bench was extracted by the learned single Judge :-"It may be pointed out here that the subject matter of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the writ petition No.743/1991 and connected writ petitions(T.A. Samuel and another V. State of Tamil Nadu and others)was not the entire acquisition proceedings, it was only inrespect of certain lands belonging to the petitionerstherein. It was that matter which was carried to theSupreme Court in SLP Nos.11353 to 11355/1988 (A.S. Naiduand others etc. v. State of Tamilnadu and others etc.)which was disposed of on the aforesaid terms on the groundthat there weas no scope for complying with the requirementthat the declaration under S.6 of the Act should be madewithin three years from the date of publication of thepreliminary notification under S.4(1) of the Act ascontemplated by the Tamilnadu Amendment to the LandAcquisition Act, which came into force in 1967. Therefore,the whole acquisition proceedings was quashed. Thus, theacquisition pertaining the remaining lands was not at allin question and the notifications issued under Sec.4(1) ofthe Act, the declaration made under S.6 of the Act and theawards pertaining to other lands remained in tact."6. Learned single Judge also observed that in the casesfiled, the awards had been in the year 1988 itself and thereforethere was no question of quashing the notification under Section 4(1)or the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, all thewrit petitions were dismissed. Learned single Judge further observed:-"12. However, this order will not stand in the way ofthe petitioner approaching the Government under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act."7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants hascontended that once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act isquashed by the Supreme Court, it is obvious that the entirenotification is quashed and it cannot be said that such notificationunder Section 4(1) was quashed only in respect of the persons who hadapproached the Supreme Court at that stage.8. We are afraid the contention raised by the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted. Theappellants claimed to have purchased the land from the power ofattorney holder of the original owner, namely, Asirvatham. (It isanother matter that the original owner is disputing the authority ofthe so called power of attorney holder to sale the land on behalf ofthe original owner. In the present case, we are not considering thedispute raised on this account). It is therefore obvious that, evenassuming that sale deed is valid the purchasers can only step intothe shoes of the original owner. As already noticed, the originalowner had filed W.P.No.2879 of 1983. The main contention raised in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said writ petition was not regarding the validity of the landacquisition proceedings, but regarding legality of certain provisionsin the Act. The alternative prayer was for payment of compensationat market rate. Such writ petition had been dismissed. Declarationunder Section 6 had been made and thereafter the award had also beenpassed so far as the original owner is concerned. As a matter offact, some of other petitioners, who were parties to the writpetitions, had subsequently filed other writ petitions contendingthat 4(1) notification itself having been quashed it must be takenthat there was no land acquisition. However, such contention wasalso rejected by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1144 & 1145 of 1996.The relevant portion of such judgment has already been extracted.The reasoning given by the Division Bench in those matters are alsoapplicable to the present case. Moreover, since the original ownerhad remained satisfied with the land acquisition and had neverchallenged, obviously the alleged subsequent purchasers cannotchallenge such land acquisition notification.9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had alsocontended that after the judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered,the officials themselves were under the impression that the entireland acquisition proceedings had been quashed and accordingly certaincommunications were also made to that effect. 10. Even assuming that some of the officials were under thewrong impression that entire land acquisition proceedings had beenquashed, the fact remains that land acquisition proceedings should betaken to have been quashed only in respect of persons who hadapproached the High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court. Evenotherwise, the Supreme Court had quashed the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act not on the ground that there was no publicpurpose or on any ground common to all the owners, but merely on theground that there was no time available to issue declaration underSection 6 of the Act. Therefore, in respect of those persons, sinceSection 6 declaration could not have been made within the timestipulated, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no pointin keeping Section 4(1) notification in tact. However, as rightlyobserved by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1144 & 1145 of 1996, such aquestion does not arise in the case of other owners, in respect ofwhom Section 6 declaration had been made within time and awards hadbeen passed. Merely because some of the officials were under thewrong impression, it cannot be now said that land acquisitionproceedings which had been completed in respect of other ownersbecame invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit inthese appeals and they are dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar.Dated: 20.3.2007*Corrected as per the orderof the Dep. Registrar (Judicial)dated 24.4.2007Sd/Assistant RegistrarDated 26.4.2007./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.dpkTo1. The Secretary to Government,| State of Tamil Nadu,| Housing and | Urban Development Department,| Fort St. George, Chennai 9.|Corrected order to be 2. The Managing Director,|despatched for the order Tamil Nadu Housing Board,| Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.| already3. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),|despatched on 24.3.2007 Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,| Chengalpattu District,| Ashok Nagar, Shopping Complex,| Chennai 600 083.|4. The Executive Engineer,| Special Division,| Tamil Nadu Housing Board,| Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 002.||1 cc to Mr.K. Chelladurai,| Advocate, sr. 1739|1 cc to Government Pleader,| High Court, Madras, Sr. 1507|5 ccs to Mr.M.A. Abdul Wahab, | Advocate, sr. 1419|2 ccs to Mr.S. Punniyakotti, | Advocate, Sr. 1221|1 cc o Mr.M. Sriram, Advocate, SR. 1216|WA.NOs.2658 to 2664/02KLT (CO)kk 21/3