Madras High Court
Father & Guardian Sridharan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 June, 2022
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos. 20827, 20829, 20830, 20831, 20874 and 20877 of 2021
1.Vasantham Properties Pvt. Ltd
3rd floor, Sindu Towers,
No.95, Luz church road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004
Rep by its Managing Director K.Suresh.
2.J.Lakshmi Priya
3.C.Kalyani Rep by
Father & guardian Chandrasekar (minor)
4.V.Suresh Kumar
5.T.Barath Kumar
6.S.Sivakumar
7.Anand A.Jain
8.Sumitra Kumari Jain
9.S.Deepa
10.Minor G.K.Lavanya rep by her
Father & guardian Kripanidhi
11.K.Santhi
12.Pushpalatha paneerselvam
13.A.Vijaya
14.Anandhi Madhivanan
15.Minor Srivindhya rep by her
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
Father & guardian Sridharan
16.R.Rahul Barua
17.Minor Bharath Rep by his
Father & guardian Muralidharan
18.R.Anuradha
19.S.Lakshmi
20.P.Sarala Kumari
21.G.N.Sathyamurthy
22.V.Neelabai
23.A.V.Natarajan
24.Thiagarajan
25.Dr. Santhanam
26.M.Revathy
27.N.Leela
28.A.Balasubramaniam
29.M.Lalitha
30.M.Arunkumar
31.R.Hariharan
32.S.Paramasivam
33.Sumathi Nandakumar
34.Uma Chandrasekhar
The address for appellants 2 to 34
Being C/o 1. Vasantham Properties Pvt. Ltd
3rd floor, Sindu Towers
No.95, Luz church road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
...Appellants in W.A.No. 3036 of 2021
Vasantham Properties Pvt. Ltd
3rd floor, Sindu Towers,
No.95, Luz church road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004
Rep by its Managing Director K.Suresh.
...Appellant in W.A.No. 3037 of 2021
1.Vasantham Properties Pvt. Ltd
3rd floor, Sindu Towers
No. 95, Luz church road,
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004
Rep by its Managing Director K.Suresh
2.Abdul Aziz
3.Balaraman
4.Kandan
5.Padma
6.Parvathi
7.Dhanabakiam
8.Geetha
9.Mala
10.Minor Bharathi rep by his
Mother & guardian Padma
11.E. Munnusamy
12.Ramu Naicker
13.Radhakrishnan
14.Kumarasamy
15.Arjunan
16.Ragava Naicker
17.Sadasivam
18.Ganapathy
19.Thangavelu
20.Gopal
21.Vedachalam
22.Ranganathan
23.Mani
24.Velmurugan
25.K.Palani
Appellants 2 to 25 rep by
Their power of attorney the 1st petitioner
3rd floor, Sindu Towers
No. 95, Luz church road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
...Appellants in W.A.No.3041 of 2021
3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government
Industries Department,
Fort. St. George
Chennai-600 009
Also at: 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Unit-III (Oragadam Plan)
SIPCOT- TACID Division,
No.1, Sivashanmugham Road,
West Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045
Present address at: Pillai Pakkam Village,
Sriperumbudur Tambaram Road,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District-602 105.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Corporation for
Industries Infrastructure Development Ltd,
68, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006
Present address at: 19-A, Ruklmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
4.State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT)
Rep by its Assistant General Manager (Law),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
....Respondents in all Writ Appeals.
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the common order dated 23.09.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 9059, 7171 and 6900 of 2001.
For Appellants in all Writ Appeals : Mr.Suryanarayanan
for R.Parthasarathy
4/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
For R1 & R2 in all Writ Appeals : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
For R4 in all Writ Appeals : Mrs.Sudarshana Sunder
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]
The Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 23.09.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in a group of writ petitions. The issues raised
in the writ appeals are common and therefore taken together and disposed of by
this common order.
2.The undisputed facts are that the lands to an extent of 11.36.5 hectares in
various survey numbers in eight villages including the appellants lands to an
extent of 0.17.14 hectares in S.Nos. 442, 444, 445, 460 and 461 in block No.7 of
Panrutti B Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District were acquired
for the public purpose of setting up an industrial complex and satellite cities with
all infrastructural facilities by the Government of Tamil Nadu under sec 4(1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
Notification dated 27.01.1999 in G.O.Ms.No.104 of the Industrial Department.
Since the 4(1) notification was issued invoking the urgency clause under Section
17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the said
act was dispensed with. Thereafter Section 6 declaration dated 05.05.1999 in
G.O.Ms.No.365 of the Industrial Department was issued. Pursuant to Section 6
declaration, notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894,
were issued calling for award enquiry. The award was passed with respect to the
petitioners lands on 04.05.2001. Shortly before the award was passed on
04.05.2001, the appellants filed the above writ petitions and obtained interim
orders, restraining the respondent from dispossessing them from the lands. The
compensation awarded was deposited on 21.12.2001.
3.In the back drop of the undisputed facts narrated above the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petitions after considering in detail the contentions raised
by the appellants as well as the respondent's counsel by the common order dated
23.09.2021. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioners in the writ
petitions have preferred the above writ appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
4.The learned counsel for the appellants raised three main objections to the
acquisition. According to the counsel, the invocation of the urgency clause under
Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not justified, in as much as, there
was no urgency and further an opportunity to object under Section 5(A) of the
Land Acquisition Act was denied by such invocation of the urgency provision.
The further objection of the learned counsel was that by virtue of Sections 21 and
23 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 1997, the
acquisition under the land Acquisition Act 1894 lapsed. According to the counsel,
when the Special Act namely Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
purposes Act 1997 was enacted the acquisition ought to have been initiated, only
under the said Act and the invocation of the Land Acquisition Act was without
jurisdiction. The learned counsel finally submitted that, after the advent of the
Right to Fair Compensaiton Act 2013, the acquisition proceedings under the 1894
Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as neither
compensation was paid nor was possession taken. The learned counsel therefore
prayed that the writ appeals be allowed.
5.In contra, the learned Government pleader submitted that, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
Single Judge has comprehensively dealt with all the issues and has rightly
dismissed the writ petitions and therefore the writ appeals are without merit and
same deserve to be dismissed.
6.We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and we have further
perused the records.
7.The first objection of the appellants is with regard to the invocation of the
urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the
learned counsel there is absolutely no justification for invocation of urgency
clause and further the valuable right of filing objections to the Acquisition given
under Section 5(A) of the Act was denied by such invocation. The learned Judge
while considering the said issue referred to a number of Judgments and concluded
that the invocation of Section 17 (4) of the Act for dispensation of Section 5(A)
enquiry was justified.
8.We are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge on this issue is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
unassailable and we would further add our own reasons to the reasonings given by
the learned Judge. No doubt there are copious Judgments on this issue both in
favour of the appellants as also against them. Therefore, the facts of the case will
determine if the invocation of urgency clause was justified or not. In the present
case the 4(1) Notification was issued on 27.01.1999 dispensing with 5(A) enquiry
under Section 17(4) of the Act and thereafter the Section 6 declaration was issued
on 05.05.1999. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants even as per their
own averments in the writ petitions submitted their detailed representations to the
respondents on 01.03.1999, 05.03.1999 and 09.04.1999 followed by reminders on
22.04.1999 and 07.07.1999 with a request to drop the proposal for acquisition
considering the facts stated in the petition. The appellants further admit that the
second respondent inspected the property of the appellants and thereafter
submitted a report to the District Revenue Officer (LA) through his letter dated
16.04.1999. Thereafter the District Revenue Officer after considering the
Tahsildar's report sent a report to the third respondent recommending the case of
the appellants for withdrawal of acquisition. It is also a fact that subsequently even
award was passed and was not challenged immediately thereupon, and thus,
Notification under Section 17 was proceeded with an award therefore challenge to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
the notification would not be of any significance.
9.According to the appellants, the first respondent, inspite of the above
facts passed the declaration under Section 6 dated 05.05.1999. From the above
narration of the facts, it is clear that though Section 5A enquiry was dispensed
with, the appellants were not deprived of their right to object to the acquisition.
After consideration of their representations and the reports from the authorities,
the first respondent had decided to publish the Section 6 declaration.
10.We are therefore of the opinion that the appellants are in no way
prejudiced by the dispensation of 5(A) enquiry and therefore the challenge to the
acquisition on this ground is untenable. One more aspect that has to be borne in
mind is that, when the 4(1) notification dispensing with the 5(A) enquiry was
issued as early as on 27.01.1999, there was no reason why the appellants waited
for two years to challenge the acquisition and that too just before the passing of
the award. Further the conduct of the appellants in participating in the 9(1) and
10 enquiry reflects on the bonafides of the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
11.Though, the appellants relied on several Judgments in support of their
plea that invocation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was un-
justified, we are not inclined to accept the same as the fact situation in those cases
are not similar to the facts of these cases. As stated supra, the appellants had an
opportunity to submit their objections to the acquisition in the present case.
Therefore the submission that by dispensing with 5(A) enquiry, the appellants
were deprived of a right to object to the acquisition is rejected.
12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of cases that the
opinion of the appropriate Government while invoking the urgency clause under
Section 17(4) is entitled to great weight, unless it is vitiated by malafide and
colourable exercise of power. Though malafides was raised in the writ petition at
the time of arguments the learned counsel did not raise any issue on malafides and
therefore the decision of the Government to invoke urgency clause cannot be
faulted with.
13.We would further like to point out here that, it is because of the litigation
instituted by the appellants, particularly the order of stay of dispossession which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
they obtained pending the writ petitions that has contributed to the delay in
implementation of the public purpose for which the lands were acquired. It would
be most appropriate to refer here to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in (1997) 1 Supreme court Cases 134, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme court has stated as follows:
“Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to
make a few observations relevant to land acquisition
proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an
ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to
make our economy competitive in the world market. We are
anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum
extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We
wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the
Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South
Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on
all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining
such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
The means of transportation, power and communications are
in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and
modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of
land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural
that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the
acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are
generally in shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts.
Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases,
orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever
may have been the practices in the past, a time has come
where the courts should keep the larger public interest in
mind while exercising their power of granting
stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary.
It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice
and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the
matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests
of justice and the public purposes, coalesce. They are very
often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an
interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts
have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest
while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of
their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High
Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition
was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal
requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled
to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a
lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of
compensation payable. There are many ways of affording
appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the
acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To
wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing
interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to
say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly
borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to
acquisition proceedings.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
14.The next objection of the appellants is that the proceedings are lapsed by
virtue of Sections 21 and 23 of the Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes
Act, 1997. The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial purposes Act 1997
(Act No.X of 1999) received the assent of the President on 21.05.1999. The Act
was brought into effect from 21.09.2001 vide G.O.Ms.No.35 Revenue [LA I (1)].
15.Section 21 of the Act 10 of 1999 reads as follows:
“21.Restriction on scope of proceedings. - The scope of
the enquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a
consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the
objection.”
16.A plain reading of Section 21 discloses that after the advent of the said
Act Acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Industrial purposes shall be
initiated only under the said Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As
noted above at the time of the 4(1) notification under the 1894 Act the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was not brought into force
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
and therefore Section 21 is not attracted.
17.Section 23 of the Act 10 of 1999 reads as follows:
“23.Application of the Act to certain pending cases of
acquisition-
The provisions of this Act shall apply also to any case
or cases in which proceedings have been started, before the
commencement of this Act, for the acquisition of any land for
any public purpose or for company under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter in
this section referred as the said Act) intended for industrial
purpose but no award has been made by the Collector under
Section 11 of the said Act before such commencement as if-
(i)the notification published under sub-section (1) of section
4 of the said Act, or
(ii)the declaration made under section 6 of the said Act, or
(iii)the notice given under sub-section (1) of the section 9 of
the said Act, where a notice to show cause against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
acquisition of the land served under sub-section (2) of
section 3 of this Act.
(2) Noting contained in sub-section(1) shall apply in relation
to any land unless and until after the Government has
published a notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette to
the effect that the said land is required for the purpose
specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act.”
18.A bare reading of the said provisions makes it clear that the Act will
apply to pending cases of land acquisition, only when no award is passed before
commencement of the Act. In the present cases the award was passed on
04.05.2001, much before the commencement of the Act and therefore Section 23 is
also not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore the objection raised by the
appellants is rejected as untenable.
19.The appellants counsel next contends that the acquisition proceedings are
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
20.In our considered view the said submission can also not be accepted for
the simple reason that the pre conditions for invocation of Section 24(2) are that
the compensation was neither paid nor possession taken. In the present cases the
compensation was deposited on 21.12.2001, which is much prior to the 2013 Act.
Further possession of the appellants lands were not taken because of the interim
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, restraining the respondents from
dispossessing the appellants pending the writ proceedings.
21.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 316. The relevant paragraph
Nos.297 and 298 of the above said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are
extracted here under.
“297.In cases where some landowners have chosen to
take recourse to litigation (Which they have a right to) and
have obtained interim orders on taking possession or orders of
status quo, as a matter of practical reality it is not possible for
the authorities or State officials to take the possession or to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
make payment of the compensation. In several instances, such
interim orders also impeded the making of an award. Now, so
far as awards (and compensation payments, pursuant to such
proceedings were concerned) the period provided for making of
awards under the Act of 2013 could be excluded by virtue of
Explanation to Section 11A. Thus, no fault of inaction can be
attributed to the authorities and those who had obtained such
interim orders, cannot benefit by their o1-22wn action in filing
litigation, which may or may not be meritorious. Apart from the
question of merits, when there is an interim order with respect
to the possession or order of status quo or stay of further
proceedings, the authorities cannot proceed; nor can they pay
compensation. Their obligations are intertwined with the
scheme of land acquisition. It is observed that authorities may
wait in the proceedings till the interim order is vacated.
298. In our considered opinion, litigation which initiated
by the landowners has to be decided on it own merits and the
benefits of Section 24(2) should not be available to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
litigants. In case there is no interim order, they can get the
benefits they are entitled to, not otherwise as a result of fruit of
litigation, delays and dilatory tactics and some time it may be
wholly frivolous pleas and forged documents as observed in
V.Chandrasekaran (supra) mentioned above.”
22.In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the Judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the same is confirmed.
23.Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
24.06.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes/No
ah/dsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government
Industries Department,
Fort. St. George
Chennai-600 009
Also at: 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Unit-III (Oragadam Plan)
SIPCOT- TACID Division,
No.1, Sivashanmugham Road,
West Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045
Present address at: Pillai Pakkam Village,
Sriperumbudur Tambaram Road,
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District-602 105.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Corporation for
Industries Infrastructure Development Ltd,
68, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006
Present address at: 19-A, Ruklmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
4.State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT)
Rep by its Assistant General Manager (Law),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
N.MALA,J.
ah
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 3036, 3037 and 3041 of 2021
24.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
