Madras High Court
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer vs V.Prabhakar Reddy ... 1St on 2 August, 2023
W.A.No.600 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 2.8.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.600 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.8369 & 8370 of 2017
1 The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep by its Secretary to Government,
Highways Department, Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Kancheepuram District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1 V.Prabhakar Reddy ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2 V.lohith Kumar ... 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent
3 Radhika Lohith ... 3rd Respondent/4th Respondent
4 L.Manoj Kumar ... 4th Respondent/5th Respondent
5 L.Haritha ... 5th Respondent/6th Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed in W.P.No.14430/2015 dated 05.04.2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Silambannan, A.A.G.,
Asst. by Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvam,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents-1 : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
For Respondent-2 to 5 : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Sr.Counsel for
Mr.S.Prem Auxilion Raj
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A.No.600 of 2017
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The instant writ appeal is filed by the Government as against the
order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.14430/2015 dated 05.04.2016.
2. According to the appellants, the writ petitioner V.Prabhakar
Reddy is a subsequent purchaser of the property in possession after the land
acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellants and he has purchased the
said property measuring to an extent of 1.96 acres by registered sale deed
dated 5.10.2005 in document No.5763 of 2005. The property originally stands
in the name of the 6th respondent. The private respondents in the writ
petition have not filed writ petition before this Court. The writ petitioner has
filed an application to transpose of the aforesaid respondents 3 to 6 in the writ
petition /respondents 2 to 5 in the instant writ appeal.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the
judgment in Shiv Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [2019
(10) SCC 229] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ
petitioner being a subsequent purchaser, purchased the property after the
land acquisition proceedings initiated by the department, cannot claim the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.600 of 2017
property on the basis of void transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further held as follows:
''(i) The Act of 2013 presupposes that a person is
required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person who
has purchased after Section 4 notification as sale deed was
void under the Act of 1894, could not claim rehabilitation and
resettlement as per policy envisaged under the Act of 2013, as
his land had not been acquired, but he had purchased a
property which had already been acquired by the State
Government, he could not claim even higher compensation, as
per proviso to Section 24(2) under the Act of 2013. An
original landowner could not be deprived of higher value
under the Act of 2013, which higher compensation was not so
contemplated when the void transaction of sale had been
entered, and right is conferred under proviso to Section 24(2)
on recorded owners under Act of 1894.
(ii) Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after
Section 4 notification, was void, is ineffective to transfer the
land, such incumbents could not invoke the provisions of
Section 24 of Act. As the sale transaction did not clothe them
with the title when the purchase was made, they could not
claim possession and challenge the acquisition as having
lapsed under Section 24 of Act by questioning the legality or
regularity of proceedings of taking over of possession under
the Act of 1894. It would be unfair and profoundly unjust and
against the policy of the law to permit such a person to claim
resettlement or claim the land back as envisaged under the
Act of 2013. When he had not been deprived of his livelihood
but was a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.600 of 2017
exploitative tactics played upon poor farmers who were
unable to defend themselves.
(iii) 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 could not be made,
based on a void transaction nor declaration could be sought
under Section 24(2) of Act by such incumbents to obtain the
land. The declaration that acquisition had lapsed under the
Act of 2013 was to get the property back whereas, the
transaction once void, was always a void transaction, as no
title could 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 did not confer any right on purchaser
whose sale was ab initio void. Such void transactions were
not validated under the Act of 2013. No rights were conferred
by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a
purchaser as against the State. [20].''
4. This Court has already decided the identical issue in
V.Anantharaman Vs. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore,
Chennai and another [W.A.No.1117 of 2020 dated 26.07.2023] wherein
this Court has held that it is trite law that subsequent purchaser cannot have
any right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.600 of 2017
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark decision in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] has
held as under:
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as
“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due
to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other
words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has
not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse."
6. It is also useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Ors. vs. The Administrative
Officer and Ors. Reported in MANU/SC/0751/2012, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed with regard to the validity of challenging the
acquisition proceedings subsequent to issuance of 4(1) Notification. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
'A person who purchases land subsequent to the
issuance of a Section 4 Notification with respect to it, is not
competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition
proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.600 of 2017
the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon
him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation
on the basis of his vendor's title.”
7. In the light of decisions cited supra, the appeal filed by the
appellant department is sustainable and the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is liable to be set aside. However, liberty is granted to the original land
owner who is 6th respondent herein, to approach the authority concern to seek
remedy.
8. Consequently, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(D.K.K.J. ) (P.B.B.J.)
2.8.2023
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes
vaan
To
1 The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu
Highways Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office Of The Revenue Divisional Officer.
Tambaram Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.600 of 2017
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J
AND
P.B.BALAJI. J.
vaan
W.A.No.600 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.8369 & 8370 of 2017
Dated: 2.8.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
