Madras High Court
Anil T George vs 7 Tamil Nadu Road Development ... on 7 March, 2022
W.A.No.437 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.437 of 2022
Anil T George .. Appellant
Vs
1 State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Highways Department
Fort St.George Chennai- 9.
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.
____________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
6 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C and 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: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 6.9.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.32201 of 2014.
For the Appellant : Ms.Anita Thomas
For the Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Special Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
6.9.2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
petitioner/appellant was dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed to declare that the acquisition
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for brevity,
"the Act of 1894"] have been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for brevity, "the Act of
2013"].
3. The writ petition was dismissed precisely on the ground that
inasmuch as the appellant has no locus to challenge the acquisition
proceedings, he cannot seek a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
It was in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings were
initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on
5.11.1992. It was followed by an award dated 29.11.1995. However,
the appellant is one who purchased the land in question in the year
2014, i.e., subsequent to the award on 29.11.1995. With the passing
of the award under the Act of 1894, the land vested in the government
free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the right to challenge the land
acquisition proceedings or to seek its lapse in view of Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013, that too, in the year 2014, is not available to a
subsequent purchaser like the appellant. It is for the reason that any
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
sale subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 is
considered to be void. The appellant can, at best, claim compensation
on the basis of his vendor's title in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and
others, (2019) 10 SCC 229.
4. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue aforesaid in
paragraphs (8) and (9) of the judgment giving out the limited right of
the appellant, that too, in a case where the transaction is of the year
2014 in respect of the land acquired in the year 1995, which vested
with the government free from all encumbrances. Paragraphs (8) and
(9) of the judgment are quoted hereunder:
"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:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
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 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).
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
...
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
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.
[emphasis supplied]
5. In view of the law enunciated in the decision of the Apex
Court in Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others, supra,
the appellant has no authority to seek lapse of the acquisition
proceedings in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 having entered
into a void transaction. That apart, the fact remains that before
passing the award on 29.11.1995, all required steps were taken by the
respondent authorities, which include publication of notice under
Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act of 1894 on 8.11.1995 in the village,
followed by notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act of 1894 on
the appellant's vendors.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
6. In view of the above, the appellant has no right to challenge
the acquisition proceedings or to seek its lapse and, therefore, the
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find
no error in the said judgment so as to cause interference.
The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
07.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
To:
1 The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Highways Department
Fort St.George Chennai- 9.
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 and 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.437 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.437 of 2022
07.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
