Madras High Court
Shanmugham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 July, 2022
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 01.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NOS. 10367, 16426, 16645 OF 1995 & 13859 OF 1996
1. Shanmugham
2. Rajagopal
3. Rathinam
4. Saraswathi
5. Amirtham .. Petitioners in WP
10367/1995
1. Muthulakshmi
2. Ramu
3. K.Krishnaveni .. Petitioners in WP 16426/1995
1. C.A.Mohammed Ali
2. Mariyam Bibi
3. Sakunthala
4. Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioners in WP
16445/1995
Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner in WP 13859/1996
- Vs -
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Commissioner &
Secretary, Housing & Urban
Development Dept.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
Fort St. George, Madras - 9.
2. The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme No.III
Coimbatore.
3. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam, Madras 600 035. .. Respondents in all the
petitions
W.P. No.10367 of 1995 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st
respondent State of Tamil Nadu culminating in G.O. Ms.474, Housing & Urban
Development (LA-1) dated 26.4.1995 relating to No.78, Navalpattu Block III
Village, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, insofar as it relates to SF
341/1, 342/1, 341/4, 341/5, 341/6 and 342/2 published in Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette Part II – Sec. 2 – Supplement dated 31.5.1995 and quash the
same.
W.P. No.16426 of 1995 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st
respondent State of Tamil Nadu culminating in G.O. Ms.471, Housing & Urban
Development (LA-1) dated 26.4.1995 relating to No.78, Navalpattu Block III
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
Village, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, insofar as it relates to Block
No.I, S.F. Nos.291/7 of an extent of 2.67.5 hectare and S.F. No.291/6 of an extent
of 0.92.0 hectare published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II – Sec. 2 –
Supplement dated 31.5.1995 and quash the same.
W.P. No.16445 of 1995 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st
respondent State of Tamil Nadu culminating in G.O. Ms.472, Housing & Urban
Development (LA-1) dated 26.4.1995 relating to No.78, Navalpattu Block No.II,
S.F. No.339/2 of an extent of 1.01.0 Hectare, S.F. No.339/3 of an extent of 1.01.0
hectare, S.F. No.339/1 of an extent of 1.01.0 hectare, S.F. No.340/1 of an extent
of 1.21.0 hectare and S.F. No.340/2 of an extent of 0.79.0 hectare published in
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II – Sec. 2 – Supplement dated 31.5.1995
and quash the same.
W.P. No.13859 of 1996 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of
the 1st respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings
in G.O. Ms. No.356, Housing & Urban Development (LA-1) dated 19.08.1996 and
quash the same and direct the respondents to drop the land acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
proceedings in respect of the lands owned by the petitioner in S.F. No.304/2 at
Navalpattu, Trichy Taluk.
For Petitioners : Mr. J.Bharathi Mohan
For Respondents : Mr. P.Sathish, AGP for RR-1 & 2
Mr. D.Murugan for R-3
COMMON ORDER
The present petitions have questioned the acquisition, sought to be made
by issuance of Notification u/s 4 (1) and the Declaration u/s 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Addl. Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and so also the learned standing
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent fairly submitted that the issue raised in
these writ petitions is already squarely covered by the order dated 3.3.2022
passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.12212/1994, etc. Batch, in and by which this
Court had quash the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, similar orders may
be passed in the present petitions as well.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
3. This Court, vide order dated 03.03.2022 in W.P. No.12212/1994, etc.,
Batch, while considering an identical issue, held as under :-
“9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently
stressed that the prior approval of the Government, as provided
u/s 3 (f)(vi) of the Act, is mandatory and in the absence of any
approval, the acquisition proceedings would stand vitiated and is
liable to be quashed. In this regard, attention of this Court is
drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
K.Rakkianna Gounder & Ors. - Vs - The Secretary, Government of
Tamil Nadu (2014 (1) CTC 64), wherein it has been held as under
:-
"5.6. We are of the view that the decisions relied upon
by the learned Counsels appearing for both sides are not
applicable to the case on hand. There is no difficulty in
appreciating the law as laid down by the Honourable Apex
Court in H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. M.
Venkataswamappa, AIR 1995 SC 2253; and Bangalore City
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,
2012 (2) MLJ 401 (SC), that prior to the issuance of
Notification, there has to be an approval of the Scheme by
the Government concerned. As stated above, when such
an approval is very much available, the decisions relied
upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants
have no Application to the case on hand."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
10. In Devinder Singh & Ors. - Vs - State of Pubjab & Ors.
(2008 (1) SCC 728), the Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to
consider the construction that ought to be given to expropriatory
statute and in that context, the Apex Court held as under :-
"42. It is furthermore trite that the Land Acquisition
Act is an expropriatory legislation. (See Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [(2005) 7
SCC 627] and Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial
Coke & Chemicals Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705 : (2007) 8 Scale
110] )
43. Expropriatory legislation, as is well known, must be
strictly construed. When the properties of a citizen are
being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its
power of eminent domain, the essential ingredients
thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and
payment of compensation are principal requisites therefor.
In the case of acquisition of land for a private company,
existence of a public purpose being not a requisite
criterion, other statutory requirements call for strict
compliance, being imperative in character."
11. The aforesaid decision in Devinder Singh's case (supra) was
also considered by the Division Bench in Rakkianna's case (supra)
and it was held as under :-
"5.8. We are also not convinced with the arguments of
the learned Additional Advocate General that prior
approval is not mandatory since it is settled law as held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008 (1) SCC 728,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a expropriatory statute and
is a provision regarding acquisition are mandatory and
also the said issue is already covered by the Judgment of
the Honourable Apex Court referred supra. Accordingly,
the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also
dismissed."
12. From the aforecited decision, it is amply evident that the
requisitioning body has to obtain prior approval of the
Government, which is mandatory, prior to issuance of Section 4
(1) Notification and in the absence of any approval by the
Government, the whole acquisition proceedings, initiated by the
acquisitioning body would stand vitiated.
13. In view of the settled position of law, it now becomes
necessary for this Court to find out whether the mandatory
approval from the Government, as provided u/s 3 (f) (vi) of the Act
has been obtained or not. Though a statement has been made
across the Bar by the learned Addl. Advocate General in the
earlier round of hearing in which reference has been made that no
prior approval has been granted by the Government, however,
this Court deemed it fit to call for the records and peruse it to
satisfy itself about the said stand taken by the learned Addl.
Advocate General. A perusal of the entire records as also the files
produced by the respondents reveal that approval, as mandated
u/s 3 (f) (vi) of the Act has not been given by the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
Learned Addl. Advocate General is not able to point out any
material in and by which approval has been granted by the
Government. In the absence of compliance with the mandatory
condition, viz., Section 3 (f) (vi), this Court is of the considered
view that the acquisition proceedings is vitiated and, therefore,
the present batch of petitions deserve to be allowed.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed
and the acquisition proceedings are quashed insofar as the
petitioners are concerned. However, this Court makes it clear that
in case of any other petitions, which have already been dismissed
or any other order having been passed, the benefit of this order
shall not enure to the petitioners therein and the said petitions
shall not be reopened by virtue of the order passed in the present
petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.”
4. The present petitions also raising identical issue, the order passed in the
aforesaid case is squarely attracted to the present petitions as well. For the
reasons aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. In the circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
01.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
GLN
To
1. The Commissioner &
Secretary, Housing & Urban
Development Dept.
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Madras - 9.
2. The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme No.III
Coimbatore.
3. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam, Madras 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. NOS. 10367 OF 1995, etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10367/1995, etc.
01.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
