Madras High Court
N.Shanmugavalli vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2025
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
Rev.Appl.No.238 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 10.01.2025
Pronounced on : 23.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Rev.Appl.No.238 of 2022
T.N.Natarajan (died)
1.N.Shanmugavalli
2.Dr.T.N.Sashikala
3.N.Prathima
4.V.Umamaheswari
5.E.Mahalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Commissioner and Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Madras – 600 009.
2.Madras Metropolitan Development Authority,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Madras – 600 009.
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.238 of 2022
3.Special Deputy Collector, LA-III,
Madras Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Madras – 600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section
114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment in W.A.No.2572 of
2001 dated 27.01.2016 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.S.Balaji
For R1 and R3 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For CMRL : Mr.Aditya Chandramouli
(R2 in
WP No.2885/2011)
ORDER
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
This Review Application is preferred by the legal heirs of the
appellant in W.A.No.2572 of 2001 seeking review of the common order
dated 27.01.2016 passed in W.A.No.2572 of 2001 and W.P.No.2885 of 2011.
2.The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan,
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who is the appellant in W.A.No.2572 of 2001. Pursuant to a notification
dated 16.10.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the
land belonged to Late T.N.Natarajan was acquired for the purpose of
formation of Truck Terminal in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex by
the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan
filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20286 of 1993 challenging the notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent
declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of his land situated in
S.No.52, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63 and 6 of Nerkundram Village, Saidapet Taluk,
Chengai MGR District, measuring 4.4 Acres. The said writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated
19.10.2001. Challenging the same, Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan preferred the
Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2572 of 2001. In respect of the same acquisition
proceedings, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Late
Mr.T.N.Natarajan, have filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2885 of 2011
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.62, Planning, Development Department and Special Initiatives,
dated 24.06.2009, and the communication of the Special Tahsildar in letter
Page 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 22.12.2010, and for consequential direction forbearing the respondents
from in any manner depriving the petitioners of their lands without due
process of law. By a detailed order, both the Writ Appeal and the writ
petition were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by common
order dated 27.01.2016. Seeking review of the order, the above Review
Application is filed.
3.The land acquisition proceedings was challenged mainly on the
ground that the objections of the petitioners were not properly considered by
the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the petitioners have admitted that
the land owner originally participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of
the Land Acquisition Act and raised his objections. It was only after
conducting enquiry, and overruling the objection of landowners the
Government issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Though it was
pointed out that the notification under Section 4(1) was not published in two
dailies having wide circulation in the locality, the Division Bench held that
no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, since the object behind wide
publicity is only to give prior notice to the land owners at the relevant point
Page 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of time to enable the land owners to submit their objections effectively. The
Bench held that the petitioners cannot sustain such small infractions unless
serious prejudice is caused to them. Taking note of the fact that Award was
passed, the Division Bench held that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of laches, following the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in several cases.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted
before this Court that the writ petition was filed before passing of Award and
that therefore, the writ petition cannot be thrown on the ground of delay and
laches. The learned counsel then submitted that the acquisition proceedings
is vitiated because of the failure to publish the notification under Section
4(1) of the Act in two dailies having wide circulation in the locality. The
learned counsel submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
was published in “Namadhu M.G.R.” and “Dinathoodhu” on 12.10.1991.
He further submitted that the publication of the notification in the official
Gazette was on 16.10.1991. Since the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act was published in two dailies before it was published in the Gazette, the
Page 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel submitted that the land acquisition proceedings is vitiated.
He submitted that, under the Act, a notification under Section 4(1) should be
published in the Government Gazette first, and it is thereafter, it is required
to be published in two dailies having wide circulation in that locality. It is
only after the notice being published in two dailies, it should be widely
published in the locality by giving such public notice in the convenient
places. The learned counsel then submitted that the publication of
notification in two dailies should be in newspapers which have wide
circulation in the locality. “Namadhu M.G.R.” and “Dinathoodhu” are all
newspapers which have limited circulation, intended to reach either party
offices or a limited circle.
5.The irregularities pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, were
elaborately considered by the Division Bench and the Bench held that all the
submissions relating to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act cannot be countenanced, since the land owner, who challenged the
acquisition proceedings, participated in the enquiry and all his objections
Page 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were meticulously considered and rejected. However, no argument was
advanced before the Bench pointing out any flaw in the order in which the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published. Therefore, this
argument also cannot be countenanced. A Review cannot be maintained on
a ground which was not raised when the main Appeal was argued earlier.
6.In this case, as rightly pointed out by the Division Bench, the
petitioners, having participated in the enquiry, cannot have any grievance.
In other words, there is no legal injury to the petitioners merely because the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the manner
as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act or in the same order as it is
expected to be published from the plain language of the statutory provisions.
It is true that, land acquisition proceedings, being ex-proprietary in nature,
the procedure contemplated under the Act has to be followed without any
infraction. Whenever the Government is satisfied that a land is needed for
any public purpose, it is open to the Government to acquire the land subject
to the observance of the procedure prescribed under the Act. The Act
contemplates notice to individual land owners as well as notice by
Page 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
publication in three modes. When a person in response to the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act files an objection, the land owner is entitled to
be heard. In the present case, it is not in issue that the land owner was given
ample opportunity to participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act
and raised all his submissions. It is in the said context, the question whether
the notification was published in the order in which it requires publication,
has no relevance.
7.In Mohan Singh and others v. International Airport Authority of
India and others reported in (1997) 9 SCC 132, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that, though compliance of these three steps under Section 4(1) is
mandatory for the exercise of the power under Section 17(4), it is not
necessary that all the three steps should be completed before making a
declaration under Section 6(1) and have it published for directing the
Collector to take possession under Section 17(1) or 17(2) of the Act. When
emergency provisions are invoked, the enquiry under Section 5-A is
dispensed with. Therefore, notice is required only during Award enquiry
fixing compensation. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Page 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, this Court is unable to find any force in any of the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners.
8.Scope of review is limited to the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure. Review is not an Appeal to permit re-hearing or
re-appreciation of facts to find whether a different view is possible. Having
regard to the scope of review, this Court finds no merit in this Review
Application.
9.Therefore, this Review Application is dismissed. However, there is
no order as to cost.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (P.D.B., J.)
23.01.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
Page 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Commissioner and Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Madras Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Special Deputy Collector, LA-III,
Madras Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 009.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
Page 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P. DHANABAL, J.
mkn
Order in
23.01.2025
Page 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
