Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Ganesan on 30 July, 2021
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11197 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ...Appellant
Vs
1.R.Ganesan
2.Thavamani Devi Palaniswami
3.P.R.Perumalsamy
4.K.Kasigounder
5.A.Ayeegounder
6.N.C.Sadasivam
7.Vanivaralakshmi Thirumoorthi
8.A.Natesan
9.R.P.Periyammal
10.P.Manickam
11.K.C.Ramasamy
12.Manju
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
13.Marappa Subramaniam
14.Singaram Jagadeesan
15.V.Rajendran
16.Venkateswaran
17.R.Muthusamy
18.Santhakannan
19.Jagathambal
20.Ponnusamy Palanisamy
21.Sengoda Gounder
22.Sundaramoorthi
23.Nallabanudurai
24.Easwari
25.Savithri
26.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
27.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 600 009.
28.The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North Taluk Office,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying
to allow the Writ Appeal and thereby set aside the order dated
02.12.2019 made in W.P.No.11778 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/9
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
For Appellant : Ms.R.Gouri
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sellapandian for R2.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)
The matter has been heard through "Video Conference".
2.This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge by which the Proceedings initiated by the
Appellant under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the
consequential proceedings have been quashed.
3.The First Respondent is the owner of the Plots and the other
private Respondents are the purchasers of the Plots in the layout
developed by the First Respondent which was approved by the Principal
Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Coimbatore by proceedings dated
21.08.1990. The lands of the First Respondent was subjected to Land
Acquisition Proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 by notification dated 17.09.1991.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
4.It is seen from the records that earlier, the proceedings
initiated by the Appellant were challenged before this Court by the other
land owners in W.P.No.13616 of 2003 and so on and the cases were
clubbed together and a batch of Writ Petitions was allowed by common
order dated 30.08.2010 and further, Writ Appeals preferred in
W.A.No.422 of 2011 and batch were dismissed by common Judgment
dated 14.09.2011. Subsequently, Special Leave Petitions filed by the
Appellant and the official Respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.6063-6066 of 2012
were dismissed by order dated 13.04.2012 and another batch of Special
Leave Petitions in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.14582-14634 of
2012 were dismissed by order dated 19.09.2012.
5.Subsequently, the Respondents who are in possession of the
respective plots have approached this Court challenging the very same
proceedings which have been quashed by this Court and confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petition holding that the very same notification has already been
quashed and the same has reached finality. Against the said order of the
Learned Single Judge, this present Writ Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
6.Heard Ms.R.Gouri, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.T.Sellapandian, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent.
7.Ms.R.Gouri, Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the
following Judgments viz., “State of T.N., and Others Vs.L.Krishnan
and Others” reported in “(1996) 1 SCC 250”, “Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay Vs.Industrial Development Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd.,
and Others” reported in “(1996) 11 SCC 501”, “Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,
Vs.Bhagwan Singh Bhati and Others” reported in “(2008) 3 SCC 462”,
“Govt. of AP and Others Vs.Kollutla Obi Reddy and Others” reported
in “(2005) 6 SCC 493”, “Swaika Properties (P) Ltd., and Another
Vs.State of Rajasthan and Others” reported in “(2008) 4 SCC 695” and
“U.P.Jal Nigam and Another Vs.Jaswant Singh and Another” reported
in “(2006) 11 SCC 464”, to contend that when there is a delay on the
part of the Respondents, the discretionary relief could not have been
granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
8.The said contention is liable to be rejected as the
Respondents' right to possess and enjoy the property also has to be
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the same
cannot be violated. Further, with regard to the contention on the part of
the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on the ground of delay, it is seen
that in Paragraph No.8 of the affidavit of the Writ Petition filed before
the Learned Single Judge, it has been observed that after the issue
relating to acquisition proceedings had reached a finality, the
Respondents were under the impression that there is no hurdle for them
in developing their plots further by getting No Objection Certificate and
when the Respondents approached the Appellant and other officials for
No Objection Certificate, they were refused to give the same and hence,
the Respondents has approached this Court. Therefore, the Learned
Single Judge accepted the explanation given by the Respondents for
approaching this Court belatedly. Moreover, they have also stated that
they were not aware of the proceedings. Therefore, the finding given by
the Learned Single Judge is justified and cannot be interfered with.
Therefore, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant with regard to delay is rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
9.The Learned Single Judge has also took into consideration
of the fact that the Respondents have already approached the concerned
authorities and obtained approval for making construction and they have
been in possession of the property from 1990. Therefore, the Learned
Single Judge also rejected the contentions of the Appellant by stating that
even if fractured land is available, the same could be developed.
10.It is seen that the Respondents have already developed the
property and they have been in possession of the property and the scheme
itself cannot be executed, as the entire acquisition proceedings have
already been quashed. When the entire proceedings have already been
quashed and reached finality, the Appellant cannot take advantage of the
observation made by the Learned Single Judge that even if a fractured
land is available, the same could be developed. As already stated, the
Respondents have already developed the property and are in possession
of the property for so many decades. That apart, the entire scheme has
already been quashed. When that is the position, there is no point in
filing Appeal after Appeal against the quashing of the very same
notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
11.Hence, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
30.07.2021
ay
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 600 009.
4.The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North Taluk Office,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ay
W.A.No.1793 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11197 of 2021
Dated: 30.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
