Madras High Court
The Member Secretary vs K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu (Died) on 9 August, 2023
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BALAJI
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2015 (in all W.As)
W.A.No.1679 of 2015
The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai -600008. ..Appellant
Vs
1.K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu (died)
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
3.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
4.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur.
6.Alamelu
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
7.Chitra
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
8.Santhi
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
9.Jayanthi
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
10.Jeeva
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
11. Sai Kala
D/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
12.Kannan
S/o. K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu.
(Respondents 6 to 12 were impleaded
vide order of this Court dated 27.02.2018.) ..Respondents
W.A.No. 1680 of 2015
The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai -600008. ..Appellant
Vs
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
1.K.N.Munuswamy Naidu
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
3.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
4.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur. ..Respondents
W.A.No. 1681 of 2015
The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai -600008. ..Appellant
Vs
1.K.G. Kothandapani Naidu (Deceased)
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
3.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
4.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur.
6. The Executive Officer,
Maraimalai Nagar Municipality,
Maraimalai Nagar,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram.
7. Thulasidoss
8. Venugopal
9. Sarguna
10.Krishnamurthy
(Respondents 7 to 10 were impleaded
vide order of this Court dated 27.02.2018) ..Respondents
W.A.No. 1682 of 2015
The Member Secretary,
CMDA,
Chennai -600008. ..Appellant
Vs
1.M.Devaraj
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
3.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
4.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kattankulathur. ..Respondents
Prayer in W.A.No.1679 of 2015: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of
Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.
12988 of 2008.
Prayer in W.A.No.1680 of 2015: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of
Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.
12989 of 2008.
Prayer in W.A.No.1681 of 2015: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of
Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.
12990 of 2008.
Prayer in W.A.No.1682 of 2015: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of
Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.
12991 of 2008.
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
For Appellants Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
(in all WAs) Assisted by
Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
For R2 to R5 in all WAs Mrs.GeethaThamaraiselvan
-Spl.GP
For R6 to R12 in W.A.No. 1679
of 2015,
For R1 in W.A.No. 1680 of
2015,& 1682 of 2016, Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan
For R7 & R9 in W.A.No. 1681 of
2015
Mr.P.Srinivasan
For R6 in W.A.No.1681 of 2015
Mr.S.C.Viswanath
For R8 in W.A.No.1681 of 2015
R1 died in W.A.No. 1679 of 2015
Not ready notice regarding R10
in W.A.No. 1681 of 2015
----
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No. 12988 to
12991 of 2008, dated 28.01.2015, the present writ appeals have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
2. Since the all the writ appeals are filed seeking similar relief, all the
writ appeals are heard together and common judgment is passed.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the prayer sought for by the respondents in the
writ petitioner is only to issue a de-notifying notification for withdrawal of
acquisition of lands of the writ petitioners. But the learned Single Judge has
ordered to re-convey the lands under Section 48(b) of the Act. No such
prayer was sought for in the writ petition. The learned Additional Advocate
General has further submitted that the writ petitioner/respondents 6 to 7
(LRs of the writ petitioner) should have made request before the appropriate
forum and seek relief.
4. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, for the
acquired lands, possession was already taken and certain amount was also
deposited in the Court, therefore, the impugned order the writ court is liable
to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
5. The learned counsel for the private respondents, the 5th
respondent/Tahsildar had initiated acquisition proceedings in the year 1974
for acquiring the 1st respondents' land and adjacent lands for formation of
Maraimalai Nagar New Satellite Town. The said lands have not been
utilised by the respondent-department from the date of acquisition and the
compensation was also not paid to the land owners. Several representations
were made to the respondent-department to issue notification to denotify in
respect of acquired lands. Since there was no response, the 1st respondents
have filed writ petitions and the same were allowed.
6. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, the
similarly placed persons in the same village approached this Court and got
benefit of re-conveyance of their lands, therefore the private respondents are
also entitled for the same benefits. The writ court has considered the said
submissions and concluded that the private respondents are entitled for re-
conveyance of the lands and consequently allowed the writ petitions.
According the learned counsel for the private, the order of the writ court
which is impugned in the present appeal is perfectly valid and does not
require any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Municipality has submitted that the possession was already taken for
acquired lands and they have been utilised for the development of
infrastructure for the town. The learned counsel had filed a Counter affidavit
to that effect. The relevant portion is extracted below;
“7. Pursuant to the formation of the Maraimalai Nagar Town
as a satellite town in order to develop the infrastructure for the
town, the various lands have been utilised for the stated town
development. In this particular land, namely S.No. 154, the
said land was intended for the use of Compost Yard for the
disposal of the sold wastes collected in the Municipal area. It
is in use from the year 2007 itself by building the compound
wall around the same. In the year 2007, the consideration for
the allotment of the said land to the Maraimalai nagar
Municipality to the tune of Rs.1,22,57,298/- (One Crore Twenty
Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety
Eight) by D.D. Dated 13.02.2007 was remitted to the appellant
by this respondent.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
8. According to the respondent-Municipality, the acquired lands have
been handed over in the year 2007 itself and the compensation amount was
also deposited in the court and the entire process of acquisition has been
completed, therefore the prayer sought for in the writ petition for
denotifying the lands from the acquistion process is un-acceptable and the
impugned order of the writ court is liable to be set aside.
9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents is that the writ court has gone into the facts of the case and
accepted the contentions of the writ petitioners/private respondents herein
and came to the conclusion that the said lands are remain un-utilised,
therefore they are entitled for the benefit under Section 48(b) of the Act.
10. The scope of Section 48-B(re-conveyance of acquired land) does
not give any right to claim re-conveyance. It merely empowers the
Government to re-convey provided conditions specified in the said Section
are fulfilled. It is useful to extract Section 48(b) of the Land Acquisition
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
"48-B Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases-
Where the Government are satisfied that the land vested in
the Government under this Act is not required for the
purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public
purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the
original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to
him under this Act for the acquisition of such land
inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A)
and (2) of Section 23, if any, paid under this Act.
11. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the land acquisition proceedings
was initiated in the year 1974 and the said acquired lands have been handed
over to CMDA in the year 2007 itself and the compensation amount was
also deposited in the court and the entire process of acquisition has been
completed. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority Case, once the entire acquisition
proceedings are over as prescribed under the Act, the land owners cannot
reopen the concluded proceedings nor question the legality of mode of
taking possession. The relevant portion is extracted below;
"343. By and large, concluded cases are being
questioned by way of invoking the provisions contained in
Section 24. In our considered opinion, the legality of
concluded cases cannot be questioned under the guise of
Section 24(2) as it does not envisage or confer any such right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
to question the proceedings and the acquisitions have been
concluded long back, or in several rounds of litigation as
mentioned above, rights of the parties have been settled.
........
366.9.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013
Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition."
12. As discussed above, the land acquisition proceedings was
initiated in the year 1974 and the award was passed as early in the year 1986
and the compensation amount for the acquired lands was also deposited
before the Court. After a period of 22 years, the petitioners filed writ
petitions seeking directions to denotify the notification for withdrawal of
acquisition lands. The writ court has gone beyond the scope of prayer and
directed the authorities concerned to re-convey the petitioners land by
observing that the petitioners' lands are untilised for more than 35 years. In
view of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
Municipality and the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the development work is being done by the 1st respondent in
phased manner, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that
the petitioners are entitled for re-conveyance under Section of 48(b) of the
Land acquisition Act is unsustainable and liable to be set aside in view of
the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority Case cited supra.
13. In fine the impugned orders passed by the writ court are set aside
and the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Since the learned counsel appearing for
the private respondents/writ petitioner insisted to grant liberty seeking to
return the lands, it is for the private respondents/writ petitioners to seek
remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(D.K.K., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
09.08.2023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
To
1. The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
2.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
3.The Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Maraimalai Nagar (Scheme)
Maraimalai Nagar, Kattankulathur.
5 . The Executive Officer,
Maraimalai Nagar Municipality,
Maraimalai Nagar,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND
P. B. BALAJI, J.
ak
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2015 (in all W.As)
03.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
