Madras High Court
Usha Subramanian vs 5 The Chief Executive Officer on 2 August, 2023
W.A.No.1014 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.1014 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.14276 of 2017
Usha Subramanian ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Secretary to Government
Public Works Department (Highways),
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu.
3 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
Poonamallee, Chennai.
4 The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department, Chengalpattu,
Tamil Nadu-603001.
5 The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited
No.346, Sindu Pantheon Plaza, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed in W.P.No.26950/2014 dated 19.08.2015 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr. T.Thiageswaran for
M/s.Waron & Sai Rams
For Respondents-1to4 : Mr.G.Silambannan, A.A.G.,
Asst. by Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvam,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondent-5 : Mr.S.Sivavarthanan
*****
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The appellant has filed writ petition challenging the land
acquisition proceedings by the first respondent initiated under Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, by stating that he had purchased the property by a sale
deed dated 31.8.2005 from one Rekha Aggarwal, registered as document
Nos.5619 and 5620 of 2005. He further submits that the patta in respect of the
property in question had been transferred in his name and the transfer has
been entered into all the revenue records.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the notification issued by the respondents under Sec.4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 19.5.1992 is invalid and deemed to have lapsed as
per Sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the notification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
issued in the year 1992 and subsequent proceedings were completed in the
year 1995, the award was passed in the year 1995, however, no compensation
had been paid to the land owners and the respondents failed to take actual
possession of the property acquired under the Land Acquisition proceedings
and therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents
deemed to have been lapsed.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents would submit that the appellant herein had purchased the said
property after the Government published 4(1) Notification. The appellant/
petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, therefore as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shivkumar & another Vs.Union of India & Others, Tamil
Nadu Housing Board and other in (Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019) dated
14.10.2019, the appellant has no right to claim over the property as the same
was purchased by him after 4(1) Notification published under the Land
Acquisition Act. The writ Court after elaborately considering the above facts,
has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order of the writ court
does not require any interference by this Court and the instant writ appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
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.
5. In Shiv Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
[2019 (10) SCC 229] relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
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].''
6. 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."
7. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
'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 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.”
8. In the light of decisions cited supra, the appellant who had
purchased the subject property after issuance of Section 4 Notification, has no
locus standi to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Thus, the
appellant cannot challenge the land acquisition proceedings, initiated by the
respondents under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
9. Consequently, the writ appeal stand dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is 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
Public Works Department (Highways), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1014 of 2017
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J
AND
P.B.BALAJI. J.
vaan
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu.
3 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Poonamallee, Chennai.
4 The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu-603001.
5 The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited
No.346, Sindu Pantheon Plaza, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
W.A.No.1014 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.14276 of 2017
Dated: 2.8.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
