Madras High Court
Anil T Geroge vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 September, 2021
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Anil T Geroge ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Highways Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Collector of Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO),
Chengalpet Division,
Chengalpet,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Tahsildhar,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Tiruporur,
Kancheepuram District.
5. The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chengalpet Division,
Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/13
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C&M)
Highways Department,
Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.
7. Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC)
Rep.by its Managing Director,
No.171, II Floor, Tamil Nadu Maritime Board Building,
South Kesava Perumalpuram,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 with regard to the land
measuring to an extent of 0.04 acres (4 cents) comprised in S.No.72/3C1 part
of Thiruvidanthai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District
belonging to the petitioner having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 which came into force with effect from
01.01.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Premkumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Government Advocate
(for R-1 to R-6)
: Mr.M.Sivavarthanan (for R-7)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/13
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to declare that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the
land measuring to an extent of 0.04 acres (4 cents) comprised in S.No.72/3C1
part of Thiruvidanthai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District
belonging to the petitioner having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' for short)
which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property comprised
in S.No.72/3C1 to an extent of 41 cents. Out of 41 cents, 20.5 cents had been
purchased from one Govindammal & others, and 20.5 cents had been
purchased from one Desingh and P.Gajendran by the registered sale deeds
dated 08.09.2014. His vendors were already issued joint patta in Patta No.934.
The subject land was acquired for the purpose of strengthening and widening
of the East Coast Road from Thiruvanmiyur to Cuddalore. After completion of
the acquisition proceedings, no compensation was paid either to the petitioner
or his vendors. That apart, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
notification was issued for acquisition of the land comprised in S.No.72/3C1
(part) ad-measuring 0.01.5 hectares or 0.04 acre. Whereas, the land has been
acquired and sub divided as S.No.72/3C1B to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares or
0.10 cents from the land owners. Therefore, the respondents cannot acquire
more land without issuing the said 4(1) notification as contemplated under the
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land
was not published in the 4(1) notification. Even according to the respondents,
the land comprised in S.No.72/3C1 ad-measuring 0.01.5 hectares or 0.04 acre
was only notified and without 4(1) notification, they cannot acquire excess
land. That apart, even in their counter, they categorically admitted that after the
acquisition of land, the award was passed on 29.11.1995 in Award No.16 of
1990. The proposal for disbursement of compensation due to the land owners
was sent to the District Collector to sanction of funds to pay the compensation.
Once the payment is disbursed to the land owners, the possession of the land
will be taken up by the Highways Department. Therefore, admittedly they have
not paid compensation and as such, the entire acquisition proceedings is lapsed
as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
4. The respondents filed counter and stated that the petitioner is the
subsequent purchaser, that too after completion of the entire acquisition
proceedings. Therefore, his sale deed become void ab-initio and he has no
locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. That apart, insofar as the
extent of land is concerned, though 4(1) notification was issued for the land
comprised in S.No.72/3C1 (part) ad-measuring 0.01.5 hectares or 0.04 acre,
there was errata for the 4(1) notification and subsequently, award has been
passed for the total extent of 0.04.0 hectares equivalent to 0.10 cents at
Rs.3,139/-. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
5. Heard Mr.N.Premkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
to sixth respondents and Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel appearing for
the seventh respondent.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the subject
land by the registered sale deeds dated 08.09.2014, that too after acquisition
proceedings. The Government have decided to acquire the land for the
strengthening and widening of the East Coast Road from Thiruvanmiyur to
Cuddalore. Accordingly, the respondents have published notification under
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
Section 4(1) read with Section 17(3) Urgency Clause of the Land Acquisition
Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) by G.O.Ms.No.1547, P.W (Highways) (HS-2)
Department dated 05.11.1992. The draft declaration as contemplated under
Section 6 of the Act was approved by G.O.Ms.No.1662/Public Works (HS-2)
Department, dated 30.11.1993. Subsequently, it was published in the two tamil
daily and thereafter, its substance was also published in the local newspaper.
The declaration under Section 7 of the Act was approved by the Government
dated 24.02.1995 and published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 22.03.1995.
7. On a perusal of the counter, it reveals that the subject land comprised
in 72/3C1 has been sub-divided in the award and the land comprised in
S.No.72/3C1B ad-measuring to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares and equivalent to
10 cents was acquired. Thereafter, the award enquiry was conducted and the
award has been passed on 29.11.1995 in Award No.16 of 1990. However, the
award amount has not been deposited by the respondents either in the name of
the petitioner or in the name of his vendors. Though the award amount has not
been deposited, the petitioner being subsequent purchaser, he has no locus
standi to challenge the entire acquisition proceedings, which was completed on
29.11.1995.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
8. Admittedly, the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and it is settled
position of law that the subsequent purchaser cannot have right to challenge
the acquisition proceedings. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the
judgment reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 in the case of Shiv Kumar and anr
Vs Union of India and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held
as follows:-
“13. The definition of 'landowner' is in Section
3(r), the same is extracted hereunder:
3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-- .....
(r) "landowner" includes any person,-- (i) whose
name is recorded as the owner of the land or building
or part thereof, in the records of the authority
concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of
2007) or under any other law for the time being in
force; or
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the
land under any law of the State including assigned
lands; or (iv) any person who has been declared as
such by an order of the court or Authority;
Landowner is a person who is recorded as the owner of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
land or building. The record of date of issuance of
preliminary notification Under Section 11 is relevant. A
purchaser after Section 11 cannot be said to be a
landowner within the purview of Section 3(r).
............................
21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of
the Act of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of
the taking over of possession under the Act of 1894
cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor
declaration can be sought Under Section 24(2) by such
incumbents to obtain the land. The declaration that
acquisition has lapsed under the Act of 2013 is to get
the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is
always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in
the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It
would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land
back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold
which was in process of acquisition under the Act of
1894. The Act of 2013 does not confer any right on
purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void
transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013.
No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in
the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State.
22. 'Void is, ab initio,' a nullity, is inoperative,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once
no title has been conferred upon him to claim that the
land should be given back to him. A person cannot
enforce and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to
start claiming title and possession of the land by
seeking a declaration Under Section 24 of the Act of
2013; it will amount to conferment of benefit never
contemplated by the law. The question is, who can claim
declaration/rights Under Section 24(2) for the
restoration of land or lapse of acquisition. It cannot be
by a person with no title in the land. The provision of
the Act of 2013 cannot be said to be enabling or
authorizing a purchaser after Section 4 to question
proceeding taken under the Act of 1894 of taking
possession as held in U.P. Jal Nigam (supra) which is
followed in M. Venkatesh (supra) and other decisions
and consequently claim declaration Under Section 24
of the Act of 2013. What cannot be done directly cannot
be permitted in an indirect method.
23. The provisions of the Act of 2013 aimed at the
acquisition of land with least disturbance to the
landowners and other affected families and to provide
just and fair compensation to affected families whose
land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or
are affected and to make adequate provisions for such
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
affected persons for their rehabilitation and
resettlement. The provisions of Act of 2013 aim at
ousting all inter-meddlers from the fray by ensuring
payment in the bank account of landholders Under
Section 77 of the Act.
24. The intendment of Act of 2013 is to benefit
farmers etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to
be landowners entitled to restoration of land and
cannot be termed to be affected persons within the
provisions of Act of 2013. It is not open to them to claim
that the proceedings have lapsed Under Section 24(2).”
9. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that
under the provisions of Section 24 of the New Act, acquisition proceedings
cannot be challenged based on a void transaction or declaration cannot be
sought to get the property back. The transaction once void, is always a void
transaction. As no title can be acquired in the land as such, no such declaration
can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to
the purchaser as the land was not capable of being sold which was in process
of acquisition under the Act of 1894. Therefore, the New Act does not confer
any right on purchaser whose sale is void ab initio. Therefore the petitioner
being the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
10. After the acquisition, the land has been duly demarcated, surveyed,
measured and mapped as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. The notice
under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the land was published in the Village on
08.11.1995. The petitioner's vendors were duly served notice under Sections
9(3) and 10 of the Act. Thereafter, the award enquiry was conducted and award
has been passed on 29.11.1995 in Award No.16 of 1990. As stated supra, the
petitioner being the subsequent purchaser, he cannot challenge the acquisition
proceedings. Therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner
is at liberty to look out his remedy with regard to differentiation in the extent
of the property comprised in S.No.72/3C1. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
06.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kv
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
To
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Highways Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Collector of Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO),
Chengalpet Division,
Chengalpet,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Tahsildhar,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Tiruporur,
Kancheepuram District.
5. The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chengalpet Division,
Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.
6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C&M)
Highways Department,
Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.
7. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC)
No.171, II Floor, Tamil Nadu Maritime Board Building,
South Kesava Perumalpuram,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.32201 of 2014
06.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
