Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Manager on 27 September, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 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).Nos.43 and 44 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos.343 & 344 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.1979 of 2018
W.A.(MD).No.43 of 2016:
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Manager,
Eswaran Kovil,
Rep. by Trustee R.Viswanathan,
S/o. V.S.Ramasubramanian,
No.53, Athimoolam Agraharam,
Madurai – 1. ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
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.12210 of 2008,
dated 30.07.2009.
For Appellant : Mr. A. Kannan,
Standing Counsel for TNHB
For R1 : Mr. T. Antony Arulraj
For M/s. S.Meena
For R2 & R3 : Mr. A. Kannan,
Additional Government Pleader
W.A.(MD).No.44 of 2016:
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. R.Viswanathan ...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
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.12227 of 2008, dated
30.07.2009.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Kannan,
Standing Counsel for TNHB
For R1 : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For M/s. S.Meena
For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.Kannan,
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAJASEKAR,J.,]
These writ Appeals have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board challenging the orders passed by a learned Single Judge in quashing
the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, issued in
G.O.Ms.Nos.516 & 517, Housing and Urban Development Department,
dated 16.03.1979 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte, dated
04.04.1979, in so far as it relates to the lands of the writ petitioner.
2.1 The Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.12210 of 2008 is the
Manager of the Easwaran Koil Temple. In his individual capacity, he filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
the connected Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.12227 of 2008.
2.2 The case of the Writ Petitioners 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
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.
2.3. 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Land Acquisition Act. As against the Common Order dated 07.04.1983, no
appeal was preferred by the official respondents.
2.4. In the year 2005, one K.Nagamani had filed W.P.No.11436 of
2005 for Writ of Declaration to declare 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. It is claimed that the present Writ Petitioners are in possession and
enjoyment of the Temple property situated in Survey No.222/5 to an extent
of 0.61 acres and Survey No.13/4 to an extent of 1.37 acres as well as
personal property situated in Survey No.226/5B2 to an extent of 0.05 acres
in Madakulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. According
to the writ petitioners, the respondents are taking steps to dispossess them
and therefore, they have filed the Writ Petitions before the Writ Court
seeking a declaration to declare that the Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.516 and 517, Housing and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Urban Development Department, dated 16.03.1979 published in Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette, dated 04.04.1979, in so far as it relates to the
lands in their possession as null and void.
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the orders passed in
various petitions on the issue, quashed G.O. Ms. Nos.516 and 517 issued
under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and allowed the Writ
Petitions.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the
present Writ Appeals have been filed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board on the
ground that the petitioners have suppressed various facts including the
ownership, initiation of previous proceedings, receipt of compensation
awarded etc.
5. Mr. A. Kannan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNHB
would submit that the Writ Petitioners have not participated in the enquiry
conducted for fixing the compensation. However, after due enquiry, the
compensation was fixed and the same was deposited into the Court. As a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Manager of the Temple, the petitioner's father has approached the
Reference Court and received the compensation amount. Subsequently, on
28.01.2004, as Trustee of the Temple, he has given a representation to re-
deliver the lands of Temple. After completion of the entire Land
Acquisition Proceedings and after lapse of several years, the petitioners
have approached this Court and obtained the orders, impugned herein
which is not sustainable and the Writ Petitioners have no locus standi to
initiate any proceedings challenging the Land Acquisition Proceedings.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners/respondents
would submit that already this Court has quashed the declaration issued
under Section 6 of the Act and granted liberty to the Government to initiate
fresh proceedings from the stage of Notification under Section 4 but,
neither any further proceedings have been issued nor declaration was made
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, thereby, all the Land
Acquisition Proceedings have lapsed. The Writ Petitioners are in
possession of the property on their own right and entitled to approach this
Court to protect their property. He further submitted that, the appellant is
only a requisitioning body and they are not entitled to file this appeal since,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
the Government, which has issued the Notifications for acquisition, has not
chosen to challenge the orders of Writ Court.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
perused the records.
8. The Issue regarding locus standi of the Requisitioning Body to
challenge the impugned orders herein is no longer res integra and the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs and Others [1995 (2) SCC 326]
has approved the right of Requisitioning Body to file an appeal challenging
the determination of the amount of compensation fixed.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in The Chairman and Others Vs.
R.Karuppa Konar & Others reported in [2007 (6) MLJ 419] had an
occasion to consider the review applications filed by the Requisitioning
Body against quashing of the Notification filed under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, in para 10, it has been observed as follows:
“10. In view of our above discussion and the
above said settled legal position of law by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Honourable Apex Court that the requisitioning body is
an interested party to the proceedings and in view of
the undisputed fact that the petitioner is the
requisitioning body, we are unable to accept the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents that these review applications filed by the
requisitioning body is not maintainable. At this
juncture, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents has submitted that if at all, as per the
judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, the
requisitioning body should have filed only an appeal
but not the review applications. This is nothing but
reading between the lines of the judgments of the
Honourable Apex Court, since it is common knowledge
of anybody that Review is only a continuation of the
earlier proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioners are not entitled to file these review
applications. Thus settling this issue, now we shall
proceed to decide the other points urged by both the
parties.”
10. It is not in dispute that G.O. Ms. Nos. 516 and 517, Housing and
Urban Development Department, dated 16.03.1979 issued under Section
4(1) Notification and also under Section 6 Notification were challenged in
the year 1983 and this Court has quashed Notification under Section 6 with
regard to the properties belonged to the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.1734 of
1983 and W.P.No.1735 of 1983. Subsequently W.P.No.11436 of 2005 has
been filed by one K.Nagamani. In the above orders, it has been held that
there is a delay in issuance of Section 6 Notification and thereby, the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
Notification was held to be not valid, as, for the lands belonged to those
Writ Petitioners are concerned.
11. The appellant herein has produced a copy of the letter, dated
28.01.2004, before us, sent by the petitioner's father in which, it was stated
that the petitioner's father had received the compensation amount for the
acquired lands of Temple from the Court on 27.10.1984 itself and he was
ready to return the compensation amount and requested for re-delivery of
the lands. This request letter was rejected by the Housing Board by letter
dated 28.07.2004, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the land is
now proposed to be developed. These letters clinchingly show that the
Housing Board has taken possession of the property and the Writ
Petitioner's father has also received the compensation amount fixed for the
lands of the Temple, as per Award No.5/82-83, dated 21.05.1982. Having
received the compensation amount, he has no manner of right in
challenging the above Notification, after lapse of 28 years.
12. As far as the subject matter of the lands in W.P.(MD).No.12227 of
2008 is concerned, the petitioner has not stated as to how he derived title to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
the property situated in Survey No.226/5B2 to the extent of 0.05 cents in
Madakulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. Originally, the lands
in Survey No.226/5B2 belongs to Sivagnane Subbiah and
V.S.Ramasubbramanian. After issuance of 4(1) Notification, dated
16.03.1979, enquiry was conducted under Section 5(A) in which,
V.S.Ramasubbramanian has appeared for enquiry and gave a statement.
After completion of Section 5(A) enquiry, Section 6 Notification was also
issued. Thereafter, enquiry for fixing the compensation was also conducted.
A copy of the Award No.10/82-83, dated 15.06.1982, 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
stated that the lands stand registered in the name of V.Sivagnane Subbiah
in Holding No.28 of Madakulam Village and now it is owned by
V.S.Ramasubramanian but he did not appear and disclose the ownership
over the land. Hence, the compensation payable for the land in Survey No.
226/5B2 of Madakulam Village to the extent of 0.05 cents will be
deposited in to the Court. The compensation was also fixed and Award was
also passed in Award No.10/82-83 dated 15.06.1982.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
13. Our attention was also invited to the records showing fixation of
compensation of Rs.46,548/- for the land in Survey No.13/4, as per Award
No.5/82-83 and compensation of Rs.17,667/- fixed for the land in Survey
No.222/5 and compensation of Rs.11,006/- for land in Survey No.226/5B2
as per Award No.10/82-83 which was deposited before the I Additional
Sub Judge, Madurai with regard to the subject lands. It is also stated by the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board that after depositing the compensation amount
along with reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the
further proceedings of taking possession was also completed and thereafter,
they have prepared the comprehensive plan for development of that area. In
the meantime, based on the individual orders obtained by some of the land
owners, a policy decision was taken to drop the proceedings with regard to
certain lands in the very same Village. However, as far as the lands in
Survey Nos.13/4 and 222/5, it is reported by the counsel for the appellant
that, scheme was already implemented and flats have also been constructed
and allotted to various persons. This shows that the land acquired has been
utilized for a public purpose and now it has been sold to various persons
and third-party interest have been created in these lands. These facts have
also been suppressed by the Writ Petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
14. As far as the land in Survey No.226/5B2 is concerned, all the
proceedings from the Notification under Section 4(1) passing an award,
fixing the compensation and depositing the compensation award amount
into the Court are completed and preparation of development plan are also
over and ready for implementation.
15. Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.12210 of 2008 has previously
filed W.P.(MD).No.24382 of 2004 and W.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2004 for re-
conveyance of the lands in Survey No.13/4 and the same was also
dismissed by this Court and no further proceedings were initiated by him.
The petitioner has suppressed the fact that, he filed earlier Writ Petitions
for re-conveyance of lands and has not challenged the order passed against
him. After completion of all the proceedings from the issuance of Section
4(1) Notification to the stage of depositing the compensation amount to the
Reference Court, under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the
TNHB/Appellants have taken possession and schemes have also been
implemented for developing the land. Since some of the land owners have
challenged the acquisition proceedings, the same was under litigation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
therefore, there was delay in developing the project. Under the scheme of
Land Acquisition Act, once the Award is passed and compensation amount
is fixed and 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 is deemed to be 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
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(2) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
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 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, 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 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.
Rejecting the said contention, it is observed in Paragraph No.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
18. In W.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2004, this Court has recorded its finding
that, possession was already taken and the lands were acquired, while so,
the land owner cannot insist the Government to re-convey the land.
19. In the instant case, the Writ Petitioners have come forward to
challenge the Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the
Act in the year 1979 and 1982, respectively, by filing Writ Petitions in the
year 2008 i.e., after 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 Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
20. The learned Single Judge, by relying on the orders passed in the
Writ Petitions filed by the other land owners has allowed the Writ Petitions
filed by the Writ Petitioners herein without considering the facts discussed
above, more particularly, the ownership of the land, which had already
vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, receipt of compensation for the
lands, right of the petitioners in challenging the Notifications, denial of
possession and thereby, the same are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
21. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are allowed. The orders dated
30.07.2009 passed in W.P.No.12210 of 2008 and W.P.No.12227 of 2008
respectively, are set aside. No order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(A.D.J.C., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
27.09.2024
(2/3)
ssi
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai.
2. The Manager, Eswaran Kovil, Rep. by Trustee R.Viswanathan,
S/o. V.S.Ramasubramanian, No.53, Athimoolam Agraharam,
Madurai – 1.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate, Madurai – 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.,
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.,
ssi
Pre-delivery Judgment in
W.A.(MD).Nos.43 & 44 of 2016
27.09.2024
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
