Madras High Court
J.Franklin Jose vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.473 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.473 & 474 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.473 of 2021
J.Franklin Jose ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagercoil Division,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Kanyakumari District,
at Nagercoil.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Sivanthipatti Road,
Thirunelveli. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
to set aside the order dated 04.11.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.6945
of 2020 and allow this writ appeal by directing the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
2 W.A.(MD)NO.473 OF 2021
respondent to register the deed submitted by the appellant /
petitioner with respect to his property in Sy.Nos.N3/4-5, N3/4-5,
N3/5-3 of Nagercoil South Village.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
for Mr.A.Balakrishnan.
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-3 : Mr.A.Kannan,
Standing counsel.
***
W.P.(MD)No.474 of 2021
J.Franklin Jose ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswara Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Sivanthapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
to set aside the order dated 04.11.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.3097
of 2020 and allow this writ appeal in the interest of justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
3 W.A.(MD)NO.473 OF 2021
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
for Mr.A.Balakrishnan.
For R-1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-2 : Mr.A.Kannan,
Standing counsel.
s
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The lands comprised in survey No.N3/4-1, N3/4-5, N3/5-3
belonged to Susaiammal, mother of the appellant herein. This land
was included in the acquisition notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.1213
Housing and Urban Development dated 17.09.1991 and declaration
under Section 6 of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.854 Housing and Urban
Development dated 14.12.1992. The appellant's mother did not
challenge the acquisition notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. However, some of the other land owners filed writ petitions
before the High Court and acquisition proceedings were quashed.
Taking advantage of the said order, a number of persons filed WPs
in the year 2013 and 2014. The writ petitions came to be listed for
final disposal on 05.09.2017. In the meanwhile, Susaiammal
executed settlement deed dated 18.02.2013 (document No.577 of
2013) in favour of the appellant herein. The appellant also filed W.P.
(MD)No.19544 of 2013 for forbearing the authorities from
proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the
earlier notifications. All the writ petitions were disposed of on
05.09.2017 in the following terms:-
“7.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
submitted that the subject matter in dispute has already
been decided by this Court in the case in N.Chelladurai v.
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to
Government, Housing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another
reported in 2000 (III) CTC 215 and the impugned
acquisition proceedings are quashed on the ground that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act and
Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules have not been
followed and the said order came to be followed in
W.P.No.21215 of 1994, vide order, dated 26.03.2004 and
also in W.A.No.541 of 2003, vide Judgment, dated
16.06.2016, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, by
quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings, left it
open to the respondents to pursue the acquisition
proceedings, if they so choose.
8.In these writ petitions, the petitioners only sought
for a mandamus against the acquisition proceedings
following the lines of the decided cases, referred to supra.
Since, liberty was granted earlier by the Division Bench
of this Court as well as in other pronouncements, this
Court directs the respondents not to proceed further as
per the earlier notification issued under Section 4 (1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, in G.O.Ms.No.1213, Housing
and Urban Development Department, dated 17.09.1991
as well as declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act,
in G.O.Ms.No.854, dated 14.12.1992, with regard to the
petitioners properties situated at Nagercoil Village,
Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil Sub-District,
Kanyakumari Registration District, Kanyakumari
District. The respondents are at liberty to go for fresh
land acquisition proceedings, but only in accordance with
law.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. We wanted to know from the learned Standing counsel for
the Housing Board, if this order had been set aside or stayed. It is
submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the writ appeal
appears to have been filed and it is still at the SR stage. Since the
order dated 05.09.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.19544 of 2013 is still
holding the field, we have to proceed on the premise that as on date,
the slate stands wiped clean and that there are no acquisition
proceedings in the respective subject land also. Once this conclusion
is arrived at, the consequence has to follow. The appellant's request
for inclusion of his name in the revenue record must be acceded to.
Likewise any document presented by the appellant in respect of the
said land cannot be refused registration by citing the acquisition
proceedings which are no longer in operation. The learned single
Judge ought to have taken notice of the fact that the order dated
05.09.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)
No.19544 of 2013 has not been stayed or set aside.
5. We are clearly of the view that the correctness of the order
dated 05.09.2017 cannot be questioned collaterally. In this view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matter, the orders impugned in these writ appeals are set aside.
The writ appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are allowed. No
costs.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
6th February 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagercoil Division,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Kanyakumari District,
at Nagercoil.
3. The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswara Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
