Madras High Court
S.Jayanthi vs The Commissioner And on 13 June, 2023
WA No.1162 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No. 1162 of 2023
S.Jayanthi ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Commissioner and
Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Cuddalore 607 001.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cuddalore 607 001.
5. The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi,
Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Superintendent,
Kurinjipadi Marketing Committee,
Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
7. The Secretary,
Cuddalore Marketing Committee,
Head Office, Judge Bungalow Road,
Cuddalore 607 001.
8. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.23869 of 2022 on
the file of this Court.
For the Appellant :: Mr.R.Gururaj
for Mr.D.Baskar
For the Respondents :: Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Govt. Pleader
Assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR 1 to 7
:: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE)
for R-8.
*****
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant challenges the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 09.09.2022 in W.P. No. 23869 of
2022. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant has challenged
the notification dated 25.06.1980 and 20.06.1983, that is, the
notification and declaration issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Single Judge of this Court
dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the claim of the
appellant is a stale claim and the property purchased by the
appellant is after the award has been passed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends
that the vendor of the appellant was never issued with the notice
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act nor any amount of
compensation was paid to him. The notifications challenged are illegal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
and do not stand to any reason. There is nothing on record to
conclude that the property in question is a temple property. The
property in Survey No. 77/3A to the extent of 0.61.0 hectare situated
at Kurinjipadi belongs to Mayavan. The revenue records also stand in
his name. The said Mayavan sold the property to the appellant on
27.06.2019. It is with the purpose to develop the property, the
appellant approached the revenue authority to mutate the name of
the appellant in the revenue record. The learned counsel submits that
the appellant sent a representation to the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to
remove the compound wall erected on the appellant's land. The same
was not considered. As such, the appellant filed W.P.No.11503 of
2022. This Court under order dated 14.06.2022 issued direction to
the respondents to consider the appellant's representation. It is only
thereafter the appellant came to know that the land was acquired for
construction of market committee. In view of that, the said
notification is challenged by the appellant subsequently. As the
notifications are illegal, no right is created in favour of the
respondents nor the right of the appellant can be divested on the
basis of illegal notifications. The learned Single Judge did not
consider the said aspect. Learned counsel for the appellant relies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569.
4. We have also heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 and
Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR &
CE) for respondent no.8.
5. Section 4 notification is of the year 1980 and Section 6
notification is subsequent thereto. The appellant is the subsequent
purchaser, that is, after the award has been passed as is observed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court.
6. After the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, the vendor of the appellant could not have executed any
instrument of sale in favour of the appellant. Moreover, the
acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged by a subsequent
purchaser. Reliance can be had upon the judgment of the Apex Court
dated January, 16 2023 in the case of Delhi Development
Authority vs. Manpreet Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
29. The Apex Court observed that the petitioner being subsequent
purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of
the acquisition. In the case of Vidya Devi (referred supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court
was concerned with the case where the land was acquired without
resorting to acquisition proceedings. In the present matter, the
appellant herself is challenging the notification and declaration issued
by the State Government.
7. In view of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
when the award had been passed under Section 11, the Collector
may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.
In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out.
The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
13.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
To
1. The Commissioner and
Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Cuddalore 607 001.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cuddalore 607 001.
5. The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi,
Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Superintendent,
Kurinjipadi Marketing Committee,
Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
7. The Secretary,
Cuddalore Marketing Committee,
Head Office, Judge Bungalow Road,
Cuddalore 607 001.
8. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1162 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sra)
WA No.1162 of 2023
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
