Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Selva Pramila ...1St on 27 September, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
W.A.(MD).No.42 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.08.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD).No.42 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.342 of 2016
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Selva Pramila ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 20. ... Respondents / Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.539 of 2010, dated
05.02.2010.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.42 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.A.Kannan,
Standing Counsel for TNHB
For R1 : Mr.Henri Tiphagne
For M/s. SC.Herold Singh
For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.Kannan,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAJASEKAR,J.,]
Writ Appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
challenging the order passed by a learned Single Judge in quashing the
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in
G.O.Ms.No.516, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
16.03.1979, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, dated
04.04.1979, to the extent of petitioner's land.
2.1 The case of the Writ Petitioner is that for the purpose of
constructing group houses, under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis
Nagar Land Development Scheme, lands situated in Madakulam Village,
Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District were proposed to be acquired under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, Notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.516 & 517
Housing and Urban Development, dated 16.03.1979. Subsequently,
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also
issued on 24.10.1980.
2.2. These Notifications were challenged previously by some of the
land owners in W.P.No.1734 of 1983 and W.P.No.1735 of 1983. As per
common order dated 07.04.1983, declaration issued under Section 6 of the
Act was quashed with regard to the lands belonging to the Writ Petitioners
therein.
2.3 However, Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act was kept intact and liberty was given to the respondents to
proceed further from the stage of Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Against which, no appeal was preferred by the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.4. In the year 2005, one K.Nagaomony had filed W.P.No.11436 of
2005 for Writ of Declaration that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.517, Housing and Urban Development
Department as null and void in respect of the land in Survey No.223/6 of
Madakulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. That Writ
Petition was also allowed.
2.5. Similarly, one R.Viswanathan filed W.P.No.12210 of 2008 and a
similar order was passed, finding that no further steps have been taken, the
proceedings in G.O.Ms.Nos.516 and 517 have lapsed.
2.6. The present Writ Petitioner, who claims to be in possession and
enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No.217/1A2A1 of Madakulam
Village alleging that the respondents are taking steps to dispossess her, has
come forward with the Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in
G.O.Ms.No.516, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
16.03.1979, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, dated
04.04.1979, with regard to the petitioner's land is null and void. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Single Judge, after considering the orders passed in various
petitions on the issue, quashed G.O.Ms.Nos.516 and 517 under Section
4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and allowed the Writ Petition.
3. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Writ
Appeal is filed on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed various
facts including the ownership and previous proceedings with regard to
receipt of compensation awarded to the predecessor-in-title of land
purchased by her.
4. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNHB
would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the
Notification. The predecessor-in-title/the previous owner of the property
has not raised any objection for acquiring his land though he had
participated in the enquiry held for fixing the compensation and the
compensation awarded was also received by him. After completion of the
entire Land Acquisition Proceedings and after lapse of several years, the
petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser, suppressing the feigning
ignorance of the earlier land acquisition proceedings, had approached this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court and obtained the order impugned herein which is not sustainable and
the Writ Petitioner has no locus standi to initiate any proceedings
challenging the Land Acquisition Proceedings.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit
that already this Court has quashed the declaration issued under Section 6
and granted liberty to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings from the
stage of Notification under Section 4 but, no new declaration was issued
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, thereby, all the Land
Acquisition Proceedings were dropped by the Government and thereby, the
entire proceedings have lapsed and the Writ Petitioner is in possession of
the property and entitled to approach this Court to protect her property.
6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
perused the records.
7. Originally, Section 4(1) Notification under Land Acquisition Act,
1894, was issued on 04.04.1979 whereby, lands specified and situated in
Madakulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai were acquired for
public purpose viz., Ellis Nagar Land Development Scheme of Tamil Nadu
Housing Board.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is not in dispute that in the present Writ Petition, G.O.Ms.No.516
issued under Section 4(1) Notification was challenged.
9. It is also admitted that immediately after issuance of Sec.6
Notification, this Court had quashed the same with regard to the properties
belonged to the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.1734 of 1983 and W.P.No.1735
of 1983 and subsequently in W.P.No.11436 of 2005 filed by one
K.Nagaomony. In the above orders, it has been held that there is a delay in
issuance of Sec. 6 notification and thereby, the Notification is not valid as
for the lands belonged to those Writ Petitioners.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has not stated as to how she
derived title to the property situated in Survey No.217/1A2A1 in
Madakulam Village, Madurai. Only the respondents in the Writ Petition
have come up with a case that the Writ Petitioner is only a subsequent
purchaser and the legal heirs of original land owner A.Gnanaprakasam had
sold this property, suppressing the fact that these lands were acquired as per
G.O.Ms.No.516, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
16.03.1979 and also the fact that the Award was also passed fixing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation.
11. Originally, the lands in Survey No.217/1A2A1 belonged to 9
persons out of which, one A.Gnanaprakasam was having 7½ cents. After
issuance of 4 (1) Notification dated 16.03.1979, enquiry was conducted
under Section 5 (A), in which, A.Gnanaprakasam had appeared and gave a
statement. After completion of Section 5 (A) enquiry, Section 6 Declaration
was also issued. Thereafter, enquiry for fixing the compensation was also
conducted.
12. A copy of the Award dated 04.06.1982, relating to the subject
property herein was produced before us. Our attention was drawn to the
portion of the Award passed with regard to the subject land in which, it is
recorded that out of 9 persons, 4 persons including A.Gnanaprakasam had
appeared and after hearing them, compensation was also fixed and Award
was also passed in Award No.7/82-83 dated 04.06.1982.
13. Our attention was also invited to the records showing fixation of
compensation as Rs.29,252/- and deposit of the same before the I
Additional Sub Court, Madurai with regard to the very same land. It is also
stated by the TNHB that after depositing the compensation amount along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with reference under Section 31(2) of the Act, further proceedings of taking
possession was also completed and thereafter, they have prepared the
comprehensive plan for development of the area. In the meantime, based on
the individual orders obtained by some of the land owners, policy decision
was taken to drop the proceedings with regard to certain lands in the very
same Village. However, as far as the petitioner's land is concerned, all the
proceedings from issuance of Notification under Section 4 (1) to pass an
award, fixation of compensation, depositing of compensation/award
amount into the Court, further preparation of development plan are
completed.
14. The petitioner herein had purchased 7.61 cents of property which
originally belonged to A.Gnanaprakasam, subsequently, in the year
08.02.2001. She has challenged the Land Acquisition Proceedings with
regard to the lands in Survey No.217/1A2A1 only in the year 2010. She
claims that since no further proceedings were initiated with regard to the
land, she is entitled for retaining the land and the proceedings initiated
against her land is declared as to be null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that the original owner
A.Gnanaprakasam had participated in the land acquisition proceedings. The
documents produced show that only after hearing the original owner
A.Gnanaprakasam, compensation was fixed and award was also passed in
the year 1983. Subsequently, the compensation amount was also deposited
into the Reference Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Thereafter, the TNHB claims that they have taken possession and schemes
have also been formulated for developing the land. Since some of the land
owners have challenged the acquisition proceedings and it was under the
litigation, there is delay in developing the project. However, they have
taken possession in the year 1983 itself. Under the scheme of Land
Acquisition Act, once the Award is passed fixing the compensation and the
same is deposited into the Court, the Government is entitled to take
possession of the property and it shall be free from all encumbrances
thereby, the ownership in the acquired land was taken away from the land
owners.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip
Singh Uban & Others etc., [1999 (0) AIR (SC) 3822] has held that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connection with owner or persons interested, who have not raised
objections under Section 5(A), in principle, it must be accepted that they
have no objection to Section 4(1) Notification operating in respect of their
property. In paragraph No.8, it has been held as follows:
“8. In connection with owners or persons
interested who have not filed objections under Section
5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no
objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect
of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those
who filed objections they might have locus standi to
contend that Section 5A inquiry was not conduct
properly. We, therefore, agree in principle with the
view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case
that those who have not filed objections under Section
5A, could not be allowed to contend that the Section 5A
inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6
declaration must be struck down and that then the
Section 4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no
objections were filed by the respondents, logically the
Section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so
for as they are concerned.”
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Meera Sahni vs Lt.Governor of Delhi
and Others reported in 2008 (5) SCC 371, has considered the right of the
persons, who have purchased the land after Notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act and has held that such alienation of the land will not bind the
Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. It is further declared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that once possession is taken, all rights, title and interest in the lands stand
vested with the Government under Section 16 of the Act free from all
encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above said decision, narrates the
various stages of acquisition and has held as under:
“12. 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 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. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow
through its Chairman and another vs. Kalra
Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others reported in
(1996) 3 SCC 124 it was stated by this Court that:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 Sneh Prabha (Smt) and others vs. State of
U.P. and another reported in (1996) 7 SCC 426 at 430
it is stated as under:
"5. ......It is settled law that any person who
purchases land after publication of the notification
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......"
The said proposition of law was also reiterated in
the cases of Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. vs. Union
of India reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 and Star 1
Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others
reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698.
13. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now
well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act
the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
acquisition proceedings and that he would be only
entitled to get the compensation”.
19. In this case, admittedly, the Writ Petitioner is a subsequent
purchaser and if at all, she is entitled to get compensation alone if the same
is not received by her vendor. A careful perusal of the pleadings, shows that
she has not come with clean hands. Though she is only a subsequent
purchaser, she claims to be the owner of the property. However she has not
denied the fact that she had purchased the property owned by
A.Gnanaprakasam, after his death. In view of the same, the petitioner is not
entitled to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and her case is liable
to be rejected.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Chennai vs. M.Meiyappan and Others reported in [ 2010 (14) SCC 309],
while deciding in respect of a portion of the lands, which are relating to the
very same Ellis Nagar Land Development Scheme, has considered the
legality of challenging the land acquisition proceedings, which were
initiated in the year 1979 after 16 years. It was urged that the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was not granted or possession was not taken for a longer period and
thereby, the acquisition becomes bad and acquisition shall be declared as
null and void.
21. Rejecting the said contention, it is observed in Paragraph 14 as
follows:
“14. At the outset, we must state that on the facts
of this case, the High Court was not justified in
entertaining the Writ Petition. In our opinion, the Writ
Petition must fail on the short ground that the Writ
Petition had been filed 16 years after the award was
announced by the Collector. It is trite law that delay
and laches is one of the important factors which the
High Court must bear in mind while exercising
discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution. If there is such negligence or omission on
the part of the petitioner to assert his right which,
taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party,
the High Court must refuse to invoke its extraordinary
jurisdiction and grant relief to the Writ Petitioner.
.....
19. Moreover, in relation to the land acquisition
proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage
stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of
public importance. The Courts are expected to be very
cautious and circumspect about exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article
32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unexplained delay in questioning the validity of
acquisition of land. In this regard, it will be useful to
advert to the observations made in P.Chinnanna &
Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors, wherein this Court had
observed thus:
“In fact, in relation to acquisition proceeding
involving acquisition of land for public purposes, the
Court concerned must be averse to entertain writ
petitions involving the challenge to such acquisition
where there is avoidable delay or laches since such
acquisition, if set aside, would not only involve
enormous loss of public money but also cause undue
delay in carrying out projects meant for general public
good.” (See also: Hari Singh & Others vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.)
20. We may, however, note that in Dayal Singh &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, a three Judge bench of
this Court, while dealing with a case of Land
acquisition, had observed that:
“Primarily a question of delay and laches is a
matter which is required to be considered by the
writ court. Once he writ court has exercised its
jurisdiction despite delay and laches on the part of
the respondents, it is not for us at this stage to set
aside the order of the High Court on that ground
alone particularly when we find that the impugned
judgment is legally sustainable.”
21. We feel that the view echoed in Dayal Singh
(supra) is not in consonance with the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Rabindranath Bose (supra),
which was not noticed in the said judgment. It is also
pertinent to note that subsequently in Printers
(Mysore) Ltd., vs. M.A.Rasheed & Ors., another three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judge Bench of this Court, had observed as follows:
“Furthermore, the writ petition should not have
been entertained keeping in view the fact that it was
filed about three years after making of the allotment
and execution of the deed of sale. The High Court
should have dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches on the part of the first
respondent. The Division Bench of the High Court
also does not appear to have considered the plea
taken by the appellant herein to the effect that the
first respondent had been set up by certain
interested persons.”
22. In the present case, as already stated, the
respondents did not furnish any explanation as to why
it took them 16 years to challenge the acquisition of
their lands, when admittedly they were aware of the
acquisition of their lands and had in fact participated
in these proceedings before the Land Acquisition
Collector. We have no hesitation in holding that the
High Court ought not to have entertained the Writ
Petition of the respondents after 16 years of the
passing of the award. The High Court should have
dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the
ground of delay and laches on the part of respondent
Nos.1 to 17, notwithstanding its earlier decision in
W.P.No.2244 of 1991, which decision, according to the
appellant, was otherwise distinguishable.”
22. In the instant case, the Writ Petitioner has come forward to
challenge the Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act in the
year 1979 and 1982, respectively, by filing Writ Petition in the year 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
i.e., after the lapse of almost 28 years. There is no explanation offered for
such a huge delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings and on this
ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
23. The learned Single Judge, by relying on the orders passed in the
Writ Petitions filed by other land lords has allowed the Writ Petition filed
by the Writ Petitioner without considering the facts discussed above, more
particularly, the ownership of the land, which had already vested with the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board and right of the petitioner in challenging the
Notification and thereby, the same is liable to be set aside.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated
05.02.2010, passed in W.P.(MD).No.539 of 2010 is set aside. No order as
to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous is closed.
(A.D.J.C., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
27.09.2024
(1/3)
ssi
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.,
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.,
ssi
Pre-delivery Judgment in
27.09.2024
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
