Madras High Court
Mrs.D.Sumathi vs The State Government on 8 August, 2023
2023:MHC:3678
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :08.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
Mrs.D.Sumathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
.The State Government,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Chengalpattu,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
CMDA Complex, E&C Market Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to dispose the petitioner's
representation dated 26.05.2023 and to release petitioner's properties bearing
Survey Nos. 337/1, 337/2B, 337/3, 337/4b, 337/7A2, 337/7B, 337/7C, 337/7B1,
337/7B2,337/6, 337/8, 340, 341, 343/8A2, 343/8A, 343/8B, 334/2, 344, 345/3,
345/3A, and 337/5B/, 344/3, 344/5, 402 an extent of 5 acres 71 cents in
Shollinganallur village, now chengalpat District previously Kancheepuram District
or to award the compensation as per present guideline value.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Varsha
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents
to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 26.05.2023 and to release
petitioner's properties bearing Survey Nos. 337/1, 337/2B, 337/3, 337/4b,
337/7A2, 337/7B, 337/7C, 337/7B1, 337/7B2,337/6, 337/8, 340, 341, 343/8A2,
343/8A, 343/8B, 334/2, 344, 345/3, 345/3A, and 337/5B/, 344/3, 344/5, 402 an
extent of 5 acres 71 cents in Shollinganallur village, now chengalpat District
previously Kancheepuram District or to award the compensation as per present
guideline value.
2. It is not in dispute that the land belonged to the petitioner was acquired
for public purposes. The land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the
petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.No.30994 of 2014 and the writ petition was
allowed on 08.04.2015. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board preferred an appeal in
W.A.No.1635 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had delivered
Judgment on 20.02.2018 allowing the writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
Housing Board. The very same ground raised by the writ petitioner in the present
representation dated 26.05.2023 was taken before the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court to re-convey the land.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority -vs-
Shailendra through Lrs & Ors. (judgment dated 08.02.2018, in Civil Appeal
No.20982 of 2017), observed that “purchasers of land after Section 4(1)
notification are not entitled to contend that acquisition has lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the New Act. This is so because the sale after Section 4 is
illegal and void. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to invoke Section
24(2) of the New Act.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held that
“since possession was taken long back and the compensation amount was duly
deposited, the twin conditions of Section 24(2) are not attracted in the subject
case.”
4. The writ petitioner was the 1st respondent in the above writ appeal and
her contentions to re-convey the land was considered by the Division Bench of
this Court. The 1st respondent preferred a S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which was admittedly dismissed. When the petitioner has raised the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
ground regarding re-conveyance of the acquired land and the said ground was
elaborately considered by the Division Bench, which was confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner now submitted a representation to the
authorities to re-convey the acquired land and thus, the petitioner is making an
attempt to mis-lead the authorities as well as the High Court. Such representation
filed repeatedly seeking the same relief, which was already considered by the
Division Bench and Supreme Court at no circumstances be entertained and as
such, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The
litigants mis-leading the authorities at no circumstance be tolerated and in the
present case, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition
proceedings and the matter went before the Division Bench, wherein the claim of
the petitioner to re-convey the land was considered.
5. That being the factum, the representation per se is not entertainable even
before the competent authorities.Thus, the writ petition is vexatious and cannot be
entertained. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen to withdraw
the writ petition, taking a lenient view, this Court is not inclined to impose costs.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
08.08.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The State Government,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Chengalpattu,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
CMDA Complex, E&C Market Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.23236 of 2023
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
