Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A.Sethuraman on 24 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.777 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.777 of 2022 AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.6590 of 2022
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nanthanam, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Ramanathapuram Housing Unit,
KTM Building, Ramanathapuram.
... Appellants/ Respondents 2&3
Vs.
1. A.Sethuraman
2. G.Sangara Raj
3. S.Rajendran
4. L.Sellakkari ... Respondents 1 to 4 /
Writ petitioners
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO),
Paramakudi Revenue Divisional Office,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District. ... 5th Respondent / 1st Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.
(MD)No.574 of 2010 dated 28.04.2022 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:03 pm )
1/5
2 W.A.(MD)NO.777 OF 2022
For Appellant : Mr.A.Kannan
For R-5 : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Special Government Pleader.
***
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard the learned Standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board and the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the fifth respondent.
2. The Housing Board challenges the order dated 28.04.2022
made in W.P.(MD)No.574 of 2010 by which the writ petition filed by
the respondents 1 to 4 was allowed by the learned single Judge.
3. The question that calls for consideration is whether the
order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.
4. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 4(1)of
the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.10.1994. The declaration
under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:03 pm )
01.12.1995. Admittedly, Section 6(1) declaration was not issued
within one year of the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act. That is why, at the instance of some of the other land owners,
proceedings had been quashed. Out attention is drawn to the order
dated 18.02.2002 made in W.P.No.132 of 1996. One S.S.Rajagopala
Iyer filed the writ petition questioning the very same acquisition
proceedings. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on
the ground that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made
admittedly beyond one year from the date of publication under
Section 4(1) notification. Questioning the same, the department filed
the writ appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the same was
dismissed at the SR stage itself. Following the same, the learned
single Judge allowed W.P.(MD)No.574 of 2010
5. The learned Standing counsel for the Housing Board would
contend that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the
ground of laches. We are not persuaded by this contention. This is
because the proceedings had become void on account of failure to
adhere to the time line set out in the Act. Therefore, the respondents
1 to 4 could have even ignored the impugned proceedings. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:03 pm )
learned single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition. Interference is
not warranted. This writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
24 February 2025
th
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
The Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO),
Paramakudi Revenue Divisional Office,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:03 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:03 pm )
