Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs M.Balakrishnan on 29 July, 2021
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.1072 of 2011 and M.P.No.1/2011
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
rep. by its Chairman,
Mount Road, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. M.Balakrishnan
2. Pallavaram Municipality
rep. by its Commissioner,
Pallavaram,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.11.2008 made in W.P.No.22572 of 2008 by
a learned Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Dr.R.Gouri
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.Kamalesh Kannan for R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/14
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
represented by its Chairman, against the order dated 07.11.2008
made in W.P.No.22572 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this
Court, without even verification of the minimum facts whether the
land-in-question, namely, Old Survey No.322, New Survey No.322/1A2
has been mentioned in the 4(1) Notification dated 17.08.1990 or
Section 6 Declaration dated 28.09.1991 or even in the Award No.2/93
dated 30.09.1993 passed by the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition
Officer, Unit-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Nandanam,
Madras-35 under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Originally, the Writ Petition No.22572/2008 was filed by
Mr.M.Balakrishnan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent,
namely, the Commissioner, Pallavaram Municipality, Pallavaram,
Kancheepuram District, to issue a planning permission to his properties
in Plot Nos.4 and 5, Golden Avenue 1st Main Road, Keelkatalai,
Chennai-117, comprised in Old S.No.322, New S.No.322/1A2 to an
extent of 4800 sq.ft. in No.155, Keelkatalai Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District, without insisting for the production of 'No
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
Objection Certificate' from the 1st respondent therein/appellant herein,
namely, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai.
3. The claim of the Writ Petitioner/1st respondent herein in
the writ petition was that he was the owner of the properties, namely,
vacant lands in Plot Nos.4 and 5, Golden Avenue 1st Main Road,
Keelkatalai, Chennai-117 having an extent of 4800 sq.ft. comprised in
Old S.No.322, New S.No.322/1A2 in No.155, Keelkatalai Village,
Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District under two sale deeds both
dated 16.06.2006, registered as Document Nos.3385 and 3386/2006
at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram. It has been also stated
that the writ petitioner purchased the properties from one
Mrs.N.Jayam @ Jaya Lakshmi who had purchased the same property
under Sale Deed dated 14.07.1963 from one Mrs. Pattammal.
Thereupon, it has been claimed that the patta for the properties also
had been issued in the name of the writ petitioner/1 st respondent
herein. Thereafter, the writ petitioner applied for building plan for
construction of a building to Pallavaram Municipality, the 2nd
respondent herein vide application dated 27.03.2008. As the 2nd
respondent Pallavaram Municipality delayed to sanction the building
plan, on further enquiry, the Writ Petitioner was informed to get ''No
Objection Certificate'' from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
appellant herein. Till date, the application seeking planning permission
could not be considered, therefore, the writ petitioner came to this
Court with the above prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the 2nd respondent to issue planning permission to his
properties, namely, Plot Nos. 4 and 5 without insisting for production
of 'No Objection Certificate' from the 1st respondent. The learned
Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on 07.11.2008, thereby
directing the 2nd respondent to consider the writ petitioner's application
for planning permission, without insisting for ''No Objection Certificate''
from the appellant for the reason that 4(1) Notification was quashed
by this Court in W.P.No.18458/1990 dated 17.11.1991. Based on
which another batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.20300/1994 etc. batch
was allowed by a Common Order dated 11.06.1999. In the said order,
the learned Single Judge has pinpointed that Section 6 Declaration
dated 28.09.1991 has not been issued within one year from the date
of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.08.1990 and that
there was no compliance of the Rule 3(b) of the Act. This order was
followed in the writ petition in W.P.No.22572/2008 dated 07.11.2008.
Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Tamil Nadu Housing
Board argued that the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein was the
subsequent purchaser, therefore, he was not having any locus standi
to file the writ petition. Inasmuch as no right or title over the
property-in-question can be claimed by him because he was a
subsequent purchaser and purchased the same only on 16.06.2006,
namely, after the publication of the 4(1) Notification of the Acquisition
Proceedings-in-question. It was also her contention that the learned
Single Judge ought not to have followed the judgment dated
11.06.1999 passed in W.P.No.20300/1994 etc. batch as they were
related to some other acquired lands, but not the land-in-question.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be
interfered with. That apart, an award has already been passed in
Award No.2/1993 dated 30.09.1993 with respect to the land-in-
question and some other lands in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board. This aspect has been overlooked, therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be interfered with, it was pleaded.
5. Again the learned Counsel for the appellant stated that on
the date of filing of the writ petition, the 1st respondent was having no
right or title over the land-in-question since the award has already
been passed on 30.09.1993 in Award No.2/1993. The 1st respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
without questioning the correctness of the Award No.2/1993 dated
30.09.1993 ought not to have filed the writ petition. Further referring
to her typed set of papers, it was also argued that originally, the land
covered in S.No.322-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 belongs to Pattammal,
Kalyanasundaram, Rangasamy, Chakravarthy and Venkataraman and
other interested persons. The said survey number 322-1 A-1 A-1 A-1
A-1 has been subsequently sub-divided. Therefore, taking advantage
of the subsequent sub-division, the 1st respondent claimed that he is
entitled to get the benefit of the order quashing the Section 6
Declaration passed in W.P.No.20300/1994 etc. batch dated
11.06.1999.
6. Opposing the above prayer, learned Senior Counsel for the
1st respondent submitted that the Survey No.322-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1
belonging to Pattamma, having an extent of 9.53 acre in entirety has
been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.20300/1994 etc. batch dated
11.06.1999 and that the land-in-question covered in Survey No.
322/1A2 was not covered either in the 4(1) Notification or Section 6
Declaration is far from acceptance. The reason being that the Section
6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.1306, Housing and Urban
Development Department, dated 28.09.1991 has covered several
survey numbers, among all these, the Survey Number 322-1 A-1 A-1
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
A-1 A-1 belonging to Pattammal, Kalyanasundaram etc. has also
suffered the quashing of the Section 6 Declaration. Even if the
argument of the appellant that the writ petitioner's land covered in
S.No.322/1A2 was not covered, that was also factually not correct.
The reason being that neither the 4(1) Notification dated 17.08.1990
nor Section 6 declaration dated 28.09.1991 shows that the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board has acquired the land of the writ petitioner covered in
Survey No.322/1A2. Therefore, it was also contended that for the
sake of argument, if it is assumed that the land of the writ petitioner
was also covered by the land acquisition proceedings vide 4(1)
Notification followed by Section 6 Declaration, at least, the award
No.2/1993 dated 30.09.1993 should have mentioned the Survey
No.322/1A2 and also the owner of the land in whose favour the
compensation was paid. That was also missing. Finally, it was also
contended that it is an admitted fact that the 4(1) Notification was
issued on 17.08.1990 and Section 6 Declaration was subsequently
issued on 28.09.1991 in G.O.Ms.No. 1306, Housing and Urban
Development Department, dated 28.09.1991 whereas the land-in-
question covered in Survey No.322/1A2 was purchased by the writ
petitioner 15 years ago, namely, on 16.06.2006 by registered deeds
as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition in W.P.No.22572/2008. Therefore, the present Writ Appeal
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
has to be dismissed, he pleaded.
7. We are also able to see from the affidavit filed in support
of the writ petition that the writ petitioner has purchased the vacant
lands in Plot Nos.4 and 5, Golden Avenue 1 st Main Road, Keelkatalai,
Chennai-117 comprised in Old S.No.322, New S.No.322/1A2 to an
extent of 4800 sq.ft. in No.155, Keelkatalai Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District under two Sale deeds both dated 16.06.2006
registered as Document Nos.3385 and 3386/2006 at the Sub-Registrar
Office, Pallavaram, Chennai. Therefore, even if it is presumed that the
writ petitioner has purchased the land-in-question on 16.06.2006
under registered sale deeds dated 16.06.2006 from his vendor
Mrs.N.Jayam @ Jayalakshmi, who purchased the property under the
Sale Deed dated 14.7.1963 from one Mrs.Pattammal, the argument
advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the writ
petitioner was the subsequent purchaser may not hold good. The
reason being that Mrs.Jayam @ Jayalakshmi was the purchaser of the
land-in-question under Sale Deed dated 14.07.1963 from the original
owner whose name was found in 4(1) Notification and only from the
said Jayam @ Jayalakshmi, the writ petitioner has purchased the same
in the year 2006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
8. Coming to the pith and substance of the core issue, when
the order dated 11.06.1994 passed in W.P.No. 20300/1994 etc. batch
clearly tells us that the 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.978, Housing
and Urban Development Department dated 17.08.1990 and Section 6
declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.1306, Housing and Urban
Development Department dated 28.9.1991 were quashed by this Court
on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Act for the reason
that it was not issued within one year from the date of 4(1)
Notification and as such, when the 4(1) Notification and Section 6
Declaration were quashed by this Court in the year 1994 itself, the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board was not even able to proceed with the
matter. That apart, yet another point needs to be mentioned herein is
that when the writ petition Nos.15590 to 155933/1991 and
20300/1994 sought for quashing of the Section 6 declaration in
respect of the land belonging to the writ petitioner were filed, this
Court by its order dated 11.06.1999 has allowed the writ petitions
quashing the Section 6 Declaration in entirety. Therefore, when the
4(1) Notification and Section 6 declaration were quashed in its entirety
and the vesting of the land with the Government also ceased to exist,
it is not known how the learned Counsel for the appellant can rely on a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Chairman and
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and another vs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
S.Saraswathy and others reported in (2015) 5 MLJ 248 (SC)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the benefit of quashing
the land acquisition proceedings can be given to those who are
approaching the court but not to persons sitting idle. As mentioned
above, when the order dated 11.06.1999 passed in
W.P.Nos.20300/1994 etc. batch has clearly shown that Section 4(1)
Notification and Section 6 Declaration were in entirety quashed, we are
afraid of applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case
cited supra. Because, the land acquired by the State Government
would revert back to the original owners of the lands.
9. Before concluding, we may also mention herein that when
the land-in-question covered in S.No.322/1A2 belongs to pattamma
was subsequently purchased by Jayam @ Jayamma in 1963 and
thereafter by the writ petitioner in 2006, it has not been established
before this Court that the land-in-question was either covered by 4(1)
Notification or by the Section 6 Declaration and more so, even in the
award No.2/93 dated 30.09.1993, therefore, it is not known how the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board can come to this Court without any
justification. In this regard, it is pertinent to extract one paragraph
from Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.1306, Housing and
Urban Development Department dated 28.9.1991 here under:
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
''Government, dry S.No.322-1 A1 A1 A1 A1 belonging
to Pattammal, Kalyanasundaram, Rangasamy,
Chakravarthy, Venkatraman bounded on the north by
S.No.295, east by Survey Nos.323 and 321, south by
S.Nos.321, 307, 301, 322-14, 13, 12, 11, 15, 322-1 A1 A-
2, 322-1 A1 A1 A1, west by S.Nos.322-7, 8, 322-1 A1 A-2,
322-1 A1 A1 E2, 322-1 A1 A1 A1 A-1 C1, 322-1 A3, 322-1
A1 A1 A1 B, 322-1 A1 A1 A1 A2, 322-2, 4, 3, 1D, 1C, 1 A-
2, 322-1B and 322-1 A1 A1 A2- 3.85.5 hectares...
Government dry S.No.322.3 belonging to
Brahadambal, interested person, K.S.Sankaranarayanan,
bounded on the north by S.No.322-1 A2 east by S.No.322-
1 A1 A1 A1 A1, south by S.No.322-4 and west by
S.No.297-0.02.5 hectare.''
A perusal of the above clearly shows that S.No.322/1A2 was
mentioned as a boundary to the acquired land.
10. Yet another regrettable observation to be recorded herein
is that when the writ petition was filed, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
the appellant herein and the 2nd respondent, namely, Pallavaram
Municipality, did not come forward to file any counter affidavit. As we
highlighted above, when the land covered in S.No.322/1A2 belonging
to the writ petitioner has not even been covered either in the 4(1)
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
Notification or in the Section 6 Declaration or in the award No.2/1993
dated 30.09.1993, filing of the writ appeal wasting the valuable
money of the Housing Board and also this Court is highly unjustified,
hence the Housing Board is imposed with a cost of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand only) payable to Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority within a period of two weeks. In view of all the
above, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal.
11. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
29.07.2021
tsi
To
The Commissioner,
Pallavaram Municipality
Pallavaram,
Kancheepuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1072 of 2011
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.No.1072/2011
29.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
