Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Tahsildar on 7 June, 2023
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
1.C.Mani
2.K.Anbazhagan
3.K.Manikandan
4.R.Venkatesan
5.R.Poongodi
6.A.Dhanalakshmi
7.S.Lakshmi
8.K.Natarajan
9.P.Vemban
10.V.Mohanambal
11.P.Jothi
12.S.Lakshmi
13.R.Venkatesan
14.V.Nagarajan
15.N.Manikandan
16.B.N.Sharmila
17.N.Elumalai
18.K.Amutha
Page 1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
19.K.Vimala
20.K.Bhuvaneshwari
21.K.Haribarath
22.K.Elango
23.E.Anjala
24.S.Dhanalakshmi
25.R.Paramasivam ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal Taluk,
Maduravoyal,
Thiruvallur District.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the
patta to the property situated to the plot owners situated in the layout
“Bhuvaneshwari Nagar” bearing Survey No.142/3, Nerkundram Village,
Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District (Now Chennai) without insisting “No
Objection Certificate” from the second respondent by considering the 1st to
12th petitioners applications for patta dated 20.09.2021, 13 th to 21st
petitioners applications 21.09.2022 and 22nd to 25th petitioners applications
dated 02.08.2022.
Page 2 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.Gouthaman
For Ms.M.Rakhi
For R1 : Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.M.Ravidranath Jayapal
[For TNHB]
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted seeking direction to the
respondents to issue patta to the property situated in the layout
“Bhuvaneshwari Nagar” bearing Survey No.142/3, Nerkundram Village,
Ambattur Taluk,Tiruvallur District (Now Chennai) without insisting “No
Objection Certificate” from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
2. The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners of the
property situated at Bhuvaneshwari Nagar layout bearing Survey No.142/3,
Nerkundram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District (Now Chennai).
They are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. However, no
patta has been issued to the petitioners in respect of their properties. The
petitioners are in possession of the relevant documents including Sale Deed,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
Property Tax, Electricity Board Connection details, to prove their title over
the property. The petitioners have submitted online applications along with
the relevant documents to the 1st respondent / Tahsildar on 20.09.2021,
21.09.2021 and 02.08.2022, requesting the 1st respondent to issue patta. The
1st respondent insisted the petitioners to obtain “No Objection Certificate”
from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, since the lands were acquired under
the Land acquisition Act.
3. The petitioners state that originally Section 4(1) notification was
issued for acquisition of lands on 11.06.1975 and 09.06.1978 in
G.O.RT.No.124 Housing, dated 08.05.1975 and G.O.Ms.Nos.996, 993, 994
Housing, dated 07.06.1978. Challenging the Notification issued under
Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The original land owners
preferred writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8370 and 8371 of 1986 and the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.01.1988 allowed the writ
petitions and quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and
directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act
afresh. However, no fresh enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the original
owners filed W.P.No.18379 of 1991, challenging the Section 4(1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
notification dated 11.06.1995. The said notification was quashed by this
Court by order dated 01.07.1999. That being the factum, the petitioners state
that they are entitled for patta and the 1st respondent ought not to have
insisted upon them to produce “No Objection Certificate” from the 2nd
respondent. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ
petition.
4. The 2nd respondent objected the writ petition by stating that the
petition mentioned lands in Survey Nos.142/3 in Nerkundram Village,
Maduravoyal Taluk, Tiruvallur District (now it is in Chennai District) was
acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board through Land Acquisition Act
1894. He would further state that the notification under section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government vide
G.O.RT.No.124 dated 08.05.1975 for implementing “K.K.Nagar Further
Extension Scheme” and subsequently the Draft Declaration under section 6
of Land Acquisition Act was approved by Government vides
G.O.Ms.No.993 dated 07.06.1978 and an Award was passed vide No.1/86
dated 30.05.1986 by Land Acquisition Officer and the same was taken over
by Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 25.07.1986.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
5. The owners / interested persons as per the 4(1) Notification. Draft
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Award for
the subject land in S.No.142/3 is as follows:
Survey Extent Ex-Land Owner Ex-Land Owner Award 1/86 dated
No. name as per 4(1) name as per 30.05.1986
Notification GO(R) 6DD GO(R)
No.124 dated No.993 dated
08.05.1975 07.06.1978
142/3 1.20 acres Issac, Manickam, Issac son of 1.Issac
Daniel and Mosai, 2.Daniel
P.Chandran Manickam, 3.Rathinavel
Daniel, Rathinam 4.Sigamani
and R.Chandran 5.Ramana w/o
Jebamani
6.Selvi Vela
D/o. Jebamani
7.Jegan S/o.Jebamani
8.R.Chandran.
6. The Tahsildar further stated in the counter affidavit that as per
award “the land registered in the name of Issac, Manickam, Daniel and
Rathinavel sons of Mari vide Patta No.181. At the time of award,
Mrs.Manickam was no more, leaving behind his legal heirs namely
Jebamani and Sigamani. One Mr.Jebamani S/o Manickam expired on 1984
leaving behind his legal heirs Ramana W/o Jebamani and Selvi Vela D/o.
Jebamani and Jegan S/o. Jebamani. Mr. R.Chandran has been included as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
interested person under Draft Declaration. The registered holders and
interested persons appeared for award enquiry. The person, who appeared
for enquiry has not revealed anything about the interest got by the said
R.Chandran over this land. Hence the enact share could not be apportioned
and so the entire compensation payable to this land will be deposited into
the City Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and a
reference to Court will be made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition
Act”.
7. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment in W.P.No.8370 and
8371 of 1986. Tmt.Ponnammal has filed W.P.Nos.8370 and 8371 of 1986,
through her Power of Attorney agent namely T.R. Viswanathan praying to
issue a 'Writ of Certiorari' or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction
in the nature of a Writ calling for the records in G.O.R.No.124, Housing
dated 08.05.1975 published on 11.06.1975 and G.O.Ms.No.996, 993 and
994, Housing dated 07.06.1978 published on 09.06.1978 on the file of the
1st respondent (The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and
Secretary of Government Housing and Urban Development Department) to
quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land of the petitioners herein bearing
S.No.284/1A, 373/2A, 373/2B, 374/2 and 375 measuring in all 10.73 acres
at village No.100 Nerkundram without impleading the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board (TNHB), even after passing of Award No.1/86, dated 30.05.1986,
The said writ petitions were allowed on 21.01.1988 and the common order
as follows:
“Since the petitioner in Writ petition
No.8370 of 1986 claims the property under
acquisition as ancestral property, the petitioner
will stand allowed. The petitioner in Writ petition
No.8371 of 1986 is the owner of the property
concerned in that petition at the time of the
Section 4(1) notification, that petition will also
stand allowed.”
8. Subsequently, the same Writ Petitioner Tmt.Ponnammal in
W.P.No.8371 of 1986 preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.18379 of 1991
challenging Section 4(1) Notification dated 11.06.1975 in respect of her
lands in S.No.284/1A, 373/2A, 373/2B, 374/2 and 375, measuring in all
10.73 acres at Nerkundram Village. This Court, by order dated 01.07.1999
quashed the Section 4(1) Notification dated 11.06.1975 and allowed the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
petition. In the said writ petition order, this Court also recorded that the
possession of the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
on 25.07.1986. The same also allowed on 01.07.1999 without impleading
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB).
From the above it is very clear that the above referred judgments are with
reference to the Survey Nos.284/1A, 373/2A, 373/2B, 374/2 and 375 and it
is not related to the petitioner mentioned land in Survey No.142/3. Hence,
the petitioners rely on the above judgment is irrelevant and not valid.
9. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment; one Tmt.
Ponnammal has filed the Writ Petition of W.P.No.17484 to 17493 of 2017
P.Balasubramanian praying that the Hon'ble Court to issue a writ of
mandamus, directing the first respondent to process the petitioner's
application dated 15.05.2017 along with the petitioner's representation dated
17.05.2017 and grant patta in respect of Plot No.69, Door No.14-A, 3rd
Street, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Alwarthiru Nagar, Chennai -87, measuring an
extent of 1200 Sq.Ft comprised in Survey No.375, Nerkundram Village,
Maduravoyal Taluk, Tiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners without
insisting no objection from the 2nd respondent within a time frame.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
However, the said writ petition of W.P.No.17484 to 17493 of 2017 has been
allowed only on 04.09.2017 and the common order as follows:
“directing the first respondent to process
the petitioners' application, dated 15.05.2017,
06.01.2016, 11.01.2016 and grant patta in respect
of S.Nos.375, 373/2A respectively in Nerkundram
Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Tiruvallur District,
in favour of the petitioners, without insisting No
Objection Certificate from the second respondent,
within a time frame.”
From the above it is very clear that the above referred judgment is in
reference to the Survey Nos.375, 373/2A and it is not related to the
petitioner mentioned land in S.No.142/3. Hence, the petitioners rely on the
above judgment is irrelevant and not valid.
10. The respondents have mainly contended that the subject property
mentioned in the writ petition in Survey No.142/3 was not covered in the
judgments referred by the writ petitioners. Thus, the petitioners cannot
claim any right over the property, since the land was acquired and the
property vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
11. Pertinently, the original registered owners of the land in Survey
No.142/3 of Nerkundram Village obtained a patta No.140 before the Land
Acquisition. After the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, it was approved by the Government and an award was
passed vide No.1/86 dated 30.05.1986 by Land Acquisition Officer and the
subject property was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on
25.07.1986. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has become the
absolute owner of the land.
12. Admittedly, the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers, who
have purchased the subject land after completion of the land acquisition
proceedings and therefore, the purchase itself becomes null and void and
consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to get patta without receiving
“No Objection Certificate” from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
13. The petitioners have admittedly purchased the subject property
after completion of all the land acquisition proceedings and taken over by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 21.03.1986. Thus, the subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
purchasers are the encroachers and they cannot claim any right over the
property.
14. The respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Thiru. Shivkumar and Another Vs. Union of
India and Others, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Other in [Civil Appeal
No.8003 of 2019] decided on 14.10.2019. The following propositions may
be culled out from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as
follows:
“8. It has been laid down that the
purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot
question proceedings for taking possession. A
purchaser after Section 4 notification does not
acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab
initio void and has no right to claim land under
the policy.
9. When we ponder as to beneficial
provisions of the 2013 Act, they also intend to
benefit landowners mentioned in the notification
under Section 4, not for the benefit of such
purchasers who purchase the land after it has
been vested in the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
10. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the 2013
Act, which is akin to Section 4 of the 1894 Act,
contains a prohibition that no person shall make
any transaction or cause any transaction of land
or create any encumbrance on land from the date
of publication of such notification. Section 11(4)
is extracted hereunder:
“11. Publication of preliminary notification and
power of officers thereupon:
(4) No person shall make any transaction or
cause any transaction of land specified in the
preliminary notification or create any
encumbrances on such land from the date of
publication of such notification till such time as
the proceedings under this Chapter are completed.
Provided that the Collector may, on the
application made by the owner of the land so
notified, exempt in special circumstances to be
recorded in writing, such owner from the
operation of this sub-section:
Provided further that any loss or injury
suffered by any person due to his wilful violation
of this provision shall not be made up by the
Collector.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
Without seeking exemption from the
Collector, there is a total prohibition on any
transaction of land. Whereas the legal position
under the 1894 Act was that a transaction effected
after Section 4 notification was illegal and void.
11. When we consider other provisions, the
“affected family” has been defined under Section
3(c) of the 2013 Act. The definition reads as
under:
“3. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(c) “affected family” includes-
(i) a family whose land or other immovable
property has been acquired;
(ii) a family which does not own any land but a
member or members of such family may be
agricultural labourers, tenants including any form
of tenancy or holding of usufruct right, share-
croppers or artisans or who may be working in the
affected area for three years prior to the
acquisition of the land, whose primary source of
livelihood stand affected by the acquisition of
land;
(iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers who have lost any of their forest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to
acquisition of land;
(iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for
three years prior to the acquisition of the land is
dependent on forests or water bodies and includes
gatherers of forest produce, hunters, fisherfolk
and boatmen, and such livelihood is affected due
to acquisition of land;
(v) a member of the family who has been assigned
land by the State Government or the Central
Government under any of its schemes and such
land is under acquisition;
(vi) a family residing on any land in the urban
areas for preceding three years or more prior to
the acquisition of the land or whose primary
source of livelihood for three years prior to the
acquisition of the land is affected by the
acquisition of such land;”
The affected family includes landowners for
whose benefit land is held before the acquisition.
A person acquiring interest after Section 11
notification cannot be said to be included in the
“affected family” at all.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically rejected the
claim of the subsequent purchasers, who have purchased the land after 4(1)
Notification and 6 Draft Declaration of Land Acquisition Act.
15. The entire land acquisition proceedings instituted under Section
4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 08.05.1975 has not been
quashed and therefore, transfer of property made by the original land
owners after completion of acquisition proceedings are not binding on the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board and subsequent occupiers are the encroachers.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the counter filed
by the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal stating that the Draft Declaration under 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was quashed by the High Court in order
dated 21.01.1998 in W.P.Nos.8370 and 8371 of 1986 and that the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
quashed by the High Court in the order dated 01.07.1999 in W.P.No.18379
of 1991. Though the said notifications have been quashed by the High
Court, the subject land in S.No.142/3 still stands registered in the name of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
17. The relevance made on behalf of the petitioners are misconceived,
since the Tahsildar has stated the facts regarding the order passed in the writ
petition. The Tahsildar further admits that the subject lands in Survey
No.142/3 still stands registered in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board. However, the Tahsildar had failed to examine the proceedings,
which where quashed by the High Court and the other proceedings based on
which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has taken over the property. Whether
the judgment of the High Court covered the subject land in Survey No.142/3
had not been examined by the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal and therefore, the
said contention of the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal
is of no avail to the petitioners.
18. Beyond the facts, the acquisition proceedings were completed and
the award was passed on 30.05.1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The
land was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 25.07.1986.
Admittedly, the petitioners were not the original owners and they are the
subsequent buyers purchased the subject property after completion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the misrepresentation or otherwise
if any made by the original owners to the petitioners will not have any
binding effect as far as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is concerned. If at all
the petitioners are aggrieved from and out of any fraudulent act of their
vendors, the petitioners have to Sue their vendors for the purpose of
redressal of their grievances. But the acquired subject land, which vests with
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, cannot be purchased by the petitioners and
their purchase itself was null and void. More so, the subsequent purchases
of the acquired land are not entitled to question the validity of the land
acquisition proceedings. When the petitioners state that they are the
subsequent purchasers and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated
against the original owners and concluded, the very writ petition filed by the
petitioners is not entertainable.
19. In this regard, it is relevant to rely on the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in 2020 (8) SCC
129. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court ruled as follows:
“366.4. The expression “paid” in the main
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not
include a deposit of compensation in court. The
consequence of non-deposit is provided in the
proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of landholdings
then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date
of notification for land acquisition under Section
4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions
of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the
lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of
non-deposit with respect to the majority of
holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
“landowners” as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.”
20. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the
case of B.Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.A.No.1204 of 2022, etc.
and batch dated 09.06.2022, held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
“2. The learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.12.1990 and the
Declaration under Section of the Act of 1894 was
issued on 27.07.1992, followed by the Award, dated
26.08.1994. The said Award lapsed as per the
provisions of the Act of 1894 and Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013. However, it is in fact admitted by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the Writ
Petitioners purchased the lands after entering into
the agreement in the year 2010, i.e., much
subsequent to the Notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Act of 1894. The learned Single Judge,
referring to the detailed facts of the case, dismissed
the Writ Petitions after referring to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs.
Union of India (reported in 2019 (10) SCC 229). It
is also after referring to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal (reported in 2020 (8)
SCC 129).
5. The Apex Court, while dealing with the
issue in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), has held
that the purchaser of the land, after issuance of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings
and he can, at the best, claim compensation. It is
for the aforesaid, even the issue in reference to
Section 24 of the Act of 2013, was also dealt with,
because, any purchase, after the Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, is termed to be
“void ab~initio“ and therefore, no Declaration can
be sought regarding the lapse of the acquisition
under the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted
hereunder for ready reference:
“7.7. In M.Venkatesh Vs. BDA (2015 (17)
SCC 1 : 2017 (5) SCC (Civ) 387), a three-Judge
Bench has opined: (SCC pp.8-9, para 16):
“16. That brings us to the question of whether
Prabhaudas Patel and other respondents in SLP (C)
No.12016 of 2013 were entitled to any relief from
the Court. These respondents claim to have
purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed
dated 22.08.1990 i.e. long after the issuance of the
preliminary notification published in July 1984. The
legal position about the validity of any such sale,
post~issuance of preliminary notification, is fairly
well settled by a long line of the decisions of this
Court. The sale in such cases is void and non est in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
the eye of the law giving to the vendee the limited
right to claim compensation and no more. Reference
may in this regard be made to the decision of this
Court in U.P.Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties (P)
Ltd. (1996 (3) SCC 124), wherein this Court said:
(SCC: pp.126~27, para 3):
“3. .... It is settled law that after the
notification under Section 4(1) is published in the
gazette, any encumbrance created by the owner
does not bind the Government, and the purchaser
does not acquire any title to the property. In this
case, Notification under Section 4(1) was published
on 24.3.1973; possession of the land admittedly was
taken on 5.7.1973, and the pumping station house
was constructed. No doubt, declaration under
Section 6 was published later on 8.7.1973.
Admittedly power under Section 17(4) was exercised
dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5~A and
on service of the notice under Section 9 possession
was taken, since urgency was acute viz. pumping
station house was to be constructed to drain out the
flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in
the State under Section 17(2) free from all
encumbrances. It is further settled law that once
possession is taken, by operation of Section 17(2),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
the land vests in the State free from all
encumbrances unless a notification under Section
48(1) is published in the gazette withdrawing from
the acquisition. Section 11~A, as amended by Act 68
of 1984, therefore, does not apply, and the
acquisition does not lapse. The notification under
Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6,
therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision
under the Act to have the acquired land divested,
unless, as stated earlier, notification under Section
48(1) was published, and the possession is
surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since
M/s.Kalra properties, the respondent had purchased
the land after the notification under Section 4(1)
was published, its sale is void against the State, and
it acquired no right, title, or interest in the land.
Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot
challenge the validity of the notification or the
regularity in taking possession of the land before
the publication of the declaration under Section 6
was published.” (emphasis supplied)
“8. It has been laid down that the purchasers
on any ground whatsoever cannot question
proceedings for taking possession. A purchaser
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
after Section 4 notification does not acquire any
right in the land as the sale is ab initio void and has
no right to claim land under the policy.”
“19. The 2013 Act presupposes that a person
is required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a
person who has purchased after Section 4
notification as sale deed is void under the 1894 Act,
cannot claim rehabilitation and resettlement as per
policy envisaged under the 2013 Act, as his land has
not been acquired, but he has purchased a property
which has already been acquired by the State
Government, he cannot claim even higher
compensation, as per proviso to Section 24(2) under
the 2013 Act. An original landowner cannot be
deprived of higher value under the 2013 Act, which
higher compensation was not so contemplated when
the void transaction of sale had been entered, and
right is conferred under the proviso to Section 24(2)
on recorded owners under the 1894 Act. We have
come across instances in which after notification
under Section 4 were issued and, the property was
purchased at throwaway prices by the builders and
unscrupulous persons, such purchases are void and
confer no right even to claim higher compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as it is to be
given to the owner as mentioned in the notification.
20. Given that, the transaction of sale,
effected after Section 4 notification, is void, is
ineffective to transfer the land, such incumbents
cannot invoke the provisions of Section 24. As the
sale transaction did not clothe them with the title
when the purchase was made; they cannot claim
“possession“ and challenge the acquisition as
having lapsed under Section 24 by questioning the
legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over
of possession under the 1894 Act. 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 2013
Act. When he has not been deprived of his livelihood
but is a purchaser under a void transaction, the
outcome of exploitative tactics played upon poor
farmers who were unable to defend themselves.”
6. This apart, the learned Single Judge has
even made a reference to the subsequent judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra). The issue in the present case is
mainly in reference to the lapse of the acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
proceedings under the Act of 1894 and that too in
the hands of the subsequent purchaser after the
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.
7. In that regard, the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Meera Sahni Vs. Lt.Governor of
Delhi (reported in 2008 (9) SCC 177), is also
relevant, wherein it was held that a person entering
to the sale or any injunction of the land under
acquisition after issuance of the Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, has no right to
challenge the acquisition proceedings or seek lapse
of the proceedings. The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment, are quoted hereunder for ready
reference:
“17. When a piece of land is sought to be
acquired, a notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State
Government strictly in accordance with law. The
said notification is also required to be followed by a
declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a
notification any encumbrance created by the owner,
or any transfer made after the issuance of such a
notification would be deemed to be void and would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
not be binding on the government. A number of
decisions of this Court have recognized the
aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held
that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge
acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the
notification or the irregularity in taking possession
of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of
the Act.
18. In U.P.Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties
(P) Ltd. (1996 (3) SCC 124), it was stated by this
Court that (SCC p.126, para 3):
“3. ...Having regard to the facts of this case,
we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor
to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High
Court. It is well settled law that after the
notification under Section 4(1) is published in the
Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does
not bind the Government and the purchaser does not
acquire any title to the property.”
19. In Sneh Prabha Vs. State of U.P. (1996
(7) SCC 426), it is stated as under (SCC p.430,
para 5):
“5. ...It is settled law that any person who
purchases land after publication of the notification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The
object of publication of the notification under
Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is
needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose
and the acquisition proceedings point out and an
implement to anyone to encumber the land acquired
thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to
enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc.
Therefore, any alienation of the land after the
publication of the notification under Section 4(1)
does not bind the government or the beneficiary
under the acquisition. On taking possession of the
land, all rights, title and interests in land stand
vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free
from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in
the land is acquired thereunder.”
8. In the light of the ratio propounded by the
Apex Court on the issue, so far as the writ
petitioners are concerned, they have no right to
challenge the Award issued in the year 1994, on the
ground that it was after two years of the
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894,
having purchased the land much subsequent to the
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
1894.
9. The delay is another ground, which is also
to be taken note of, because, the acquisition
proceedings herein were challenged by the
appellants/writ petitioners after a lapse of almost 20
years of the Award and otherwise, the delay was not
ignored pursuant to the Act of 2013.”
21. In the present case also the acquisition proceedings were
concluded and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide
No.1/86 dated 30.05.1986. The land was taken over by the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board on 25.07.1986. Thus, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has
become the absolute owner of the subject land. The petitioners claiming as
subsequent purchasers are not entitled to claim any right over the subject
land.
22. The ratio laid down in the judgment (cited supra) would be
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners are
admittedly subsequent purchasers, who have purchased the subject property
after completion of the land acquisition proceedings and more so, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
proceedings were concluded in the year 1986 and almost 36 years lapsed. At
this length of time, the claim of the writ petitioners to grant patta cannot be
considered and the stand by the Tahsildar asking the petitioners to produce
the “No Objection Certificate” from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is well
founded and in consonance with the principles settled by the Courts.
23. Thus, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
No costs.
07.06.2023
Jeni
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal Taluk,
Maduravoyal,
Thiruvallur District.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.34800 of 2022
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
