Madras High Court
Shanthakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2021
W.A.No.580 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.580 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.5573 of 2018
Shanthakumar .. Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai - 18.
3.The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition),
Unit III,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes,
Nandanam, Chennai - 18.
4.Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.V.R.Venkatachalam,
No.25, Sir C.V.Raman Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai - 18
(R4 amended vide order dated 12.06.2018
made in CMP No.7010/18 in WA No.580/2018) .. Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.580 of 2018
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 02.02.2018 made in W.P.No.2297 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Government Counsel for R1 and R3
Dr.R.Gowri for R2
No appearance for R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant laying a
challenge to the land acquisition proceedings initiated and concluded
by way of declaration under Section 6 in the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.667, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
06.08.1981. The award was passed on 23.09.1986. Notices have been
issued to the purchasers of land from the father of the appellant in
whose name the revenue records stood at the relevant point of time.
An allotment was also made in favour of the fourth respondent by the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.208 Housing and Urban Development
Department, dated 12.06.1998. Sale deed was executed in the year
2014.
2. The appellant received reply from the second respondent on
25.06.2001 stating that way back in the year 1981, the father of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.580 of 2018
appellant sold the property to seven persons and they have been given
compensation in Award No.3 of 1986 dated 23.09.1986. Therefore, his
request cannot be considered.
3. Not satisfied with the said reply, the appellant filed a suit in
O.S.No.8017 of 2006 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. In the
said suit, the purchasers from the father of the appellant and the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board were arrayed as defendants. The suit was
dismissed on 28.01.2014 and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.272
of 2014 by judgment dated 17.02.2017.
4. Thereafter in the year 2018, the appellant filed the present
writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings as aforesaid. The
learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and hence the
present appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
mere delay and laches would not arise as a bar. There is no notice
issued to the father of the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.580 of 2018
6. We do not find absolutely any merit in this appeal. In the year
1981, the father of the appellant alienated the property. In the award
proceedings, the purchasers were put on notice and an award was
passed. The declaration was passed in the year 1981. The appellant
sought to re-agitate the same by way of a notice to the second
respondent who being the requisition body became the absolute owner
and after the completion of the proceedings, a reply was given on
09.10.2001.
7. The appellant was ill-advised to file a suit in the year 2006
against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the persons who purchased
the property from his father. The suit and the appeal were dismissed.
8. Considering the above, we do not find any merit in this
appeal. Certainly, the issue qua the delay, laches and acquiescence
would come into play in a land acquisition proceedings. The appellant
was aware of the proceedings as could be seen from the facts narrated
above. Even after the Award was passed, no attempt was made to
challenge it. The property stood in the name of his father, who
alienated it in favour of various persons, arrayed as respondents
before us. Now, title has passed on. The averment in the plaint and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.580 of 2018
communications sent by the appellant would indicate the fact that he
was aware of the Award having been passed decades ago. The
appellant does not even have the title on two grounds, namely, the
acquisition proceedings and the sale having been effected by his father.
9. Therefore, looking from any perspective, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge
and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
30.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George,Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,Chennai - 18.
3.The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition),
Unit III,Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes,
Nandanam, Chennai - 18.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.580 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.580 of 2018
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
