Madras High Court
The Chairman vs K.A.Ramachandra Rao on 26 April, 2021
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A. No.1346 of 2011
and M.P. No.1 of 2011
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035. ... Appellant
versus
1.K.A.Ramachandra Rao
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow
this writ appeal by setting aside the order made in W.P. No.5031 of
2000 dated 22.06.2009 on the file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
For Appellant : Dr.R.Gowri
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.D.Senthilkumar for R1
Mrs.A.B.Reehana Begum,
Government Advocate for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)
The Chairman of Tamil Nadu Housing Board has brought this
writ appeal against the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5031 of 2000 in and by
which, the learned Single Judge, based on the order passed in W.P.
Nos.19925 and 19927 of 1994 dated 21.12.2004, allowed the writ
petition on the ground that Notification issued under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and
the Award passed under Sections 6, 9 and 10 of the Act were
quashed.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the writ petitioner is not entitled to come to this Court invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the huge and
un-explained delay of five years from the date of passing the Award
dated 18.04.1995 in Award No.1/1995. In the meanwhile, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
appellant has taken possession by virtue of Section 16 of the Act,
when 4(1) Notification followed by Section 6 declaration had taken
place. After passing the award, either the land owner or the
interested person has no legal right in respect of the land in
question. Therefore, when the award No.1 of 1995 was passed on
18.04.1995, after huge and unexplained delay of 5 long years, the
writ petitioner cannot come to this Court.
3.Secondly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing the writ petition was subsequently set aside by the Division
Bench vide its judgment dated 25.11.2008 in Writ Appeal Nos.1241
and 1242 of 2005 on the ground that the Notification issued under
Section 4(1) has become defective, due to improper publication in
the local newspaper and that the public purpose would override the
individual interest and that belated claims cannot be entertained.
These aspects have been overlooked by allowing the writ petition
filed by the writ petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside by allowing the appeal, it is pleaded.
4.Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, opposing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
above contentions, pleaded that when similar writ appeal in W.A.
No.3887 of 2019 was filed by Ravisam challenging the similar order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.3640 of 2001, the
Hon'ble First Bench, setting aside the impugned judgment dated
24.06.2019 and the Review Application dated 26.08.2019, allowed
the Writ Appeal No.3887 of 2019 and remitted back the matter to
the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
first respondent contended that in the present case on hand, when
4(1) Notification was issued, followed by Section 6 declaration,
neither the name of the writ petitioner nor the name of the vendor
was mentioned in spite of the fact that the vendor's name found a
place in the revenue records. Continuing his arguments, he would
submit that the writ petitioner has purchased the land in question
on 30.09.1981, but the 4(1) Notification was issued on 05.02.1992,
after several long years. However, Section 6 declaration was issued
on 15.04.1993 and thereafter, the Award No.1 of 1995 was passed
on 18.04.1995 by the Collector. When the original owner of the land
in question has executed the sale deed on 30.09.1981 before the
issuance of 4(1) Notification, the name of the writ petitioner should
have been shown either in the 4(1) Notification or in the Section 6
declaration. In the present case on hand, without showing the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
of the land owner in 4(1) Notification or in Section 6 declaration, the
Department cannot proceed to hold the Award enquiry under
Section 5-A of the Act. Moreover, before holding the Award enquiry,
no notice was issued either to the writ petitioner or to his vendor.
These aspects have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge
while allowing the writ petition. Moreover, when the writ petitioner
has filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, raising several legal issues that no notice was
issued to the petitioner or to the vendors before holding the Award
enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, failure of which would vitiate
the entire land acquisition proceedings, the appellant, without even
filing any counter affidavit answering any one of the substantial
issues, merely making oral statement that a similar order passed by
the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal, hurriedly this impugned order allowing the writ petition has
been passed without deciding any good reasons. Now a similar
order has been set aside by the First Bench. Therefore, when a
similar order was set aside by the Hon'ble First Bench in W.P.
No.3887 of 2019 vide order dated 22.07.2020 on the ground that
notice was issued to the dead person, whereas, in the present case,
no such notice was issued to the land owner namely, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
petitioner and that the writ Court did not examine any factual or
legal issues and the matter may be remanded back to the learned
Single Judge for fresh consideration, it is pleaded.
5.Finding merits on the submission made by Mr.Sundaresan
that there was no records produced before us and no notice was
issued either to the writ petitioner or to his vendor, taking note of
the fact that 4(1) Notification was issued on 05.02.1992, followed
by Section 6 declaration issued on 15.04.1993 and award was
passed on 18.04.1995 bearing Award No.1 of 1995 and the writ
petitioner had purchased the land way back on 30.09.1981, we are
of the considered opinion that notice ought to have been issued to
the original owner of the land. As it has not been done so, we are
inclined to remand the matter back for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal is
allowed remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge for
fresh consideration as per law. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2011
stands closed. No costs.
[T.R.,J] [V.S.G.,J]
26.04.2021
vga
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1346 of 2011
T.RAJA,J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
vga
W.A. No.1346 of 2011
and M.P. No.1 of 2011
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
