Madras High Court
R.Elangovan Rep.By vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep on 26 March, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:878
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on : Delivered on :
26.3.2025 03.04.2025
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition Nos.7423, 7424 & 8171 of 1986
& 16510 of 1990
R.Elangovan rep.by
power of attorney agent
K.Ramaranganathan. ...Petitioner in
WP.No.7423 of
1986
Parthiban rep.by power of
attorney agent Mrs.Saradamani ...Petitioner in
WP.No.7424 of
1986
1.L.Bakthavatsal (died)
2.L.Jaganathan (died)
3.L.Venkatapathi (died)
4.Tmt.Manickammal (died) ...P1 to P4 in
WP.No.8171 of
1986
5.Vasundra
6.B.Vijay Venkatasamy
7.B.Lakshmi Narayanan
(brought on record as the legal heirs
1/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
of deceased P1 - Mr.L.Bakthavatsal
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 vide this order) ...P5 to P7 in
WP.No.8171 of
1986
8.Mrs.Geethalakshmi
9.Mr.Thulasidharan
10.Mrs.Yashodha
11.Mrs.Kiruthika
(brought on record as the legal heirs
of deceased P2 - Mr.L.Jaganathan
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 vide this order) ...P8 to P11 in
WP.No.8171 of
1986
12.Mrs.V.Vasanthamani
13.Mr.V.Rajkumar
14.Mr.V.Muralidharan
(brought on record as the legal heirs
of deceased P3 - Mr.L.Venkatapathi
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 vide this order) ...P12 to P14 in
WP.No.8171 of
1986
15.Mrs.Santha
16.Mrs.Dheena
17.Mrs.Padamalochana
18.Mrs.Shakuntala
(brought on record as the
legal heirs of deceased P4 -
Tmt.Manickammal in
WP.No.8171 of 1986 vide
order dated 26.3.2025 in
WMP.No.10626 of 2025 by
NAVJ) ...P15 to P18 in
WP.No.8171 of
2/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
1986
1.G.K.Vijayakumar (deceased)
2.V.Rajeshwari
3.V.Rajagopal
4.Arthi Anand
5.Tharini Vijayakumar
(P2 to P5 were substituted as the
legal heirs of the deceased 1st
petitioner as per order dated
21.12.2024 in WMP.No.38115
of 2024 by PTAJ) ...Petitioners in
WP.No.16510 of
1990
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.
by its Commissioner & Secretary
to Government, Housing and Urban
Development Department,
Fort St.George, Madras-9.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), Housing Scheme II,
Collectorate, Coimbatore-18. ...R1 & R2 in
all the WPs
3.The Tamilnadu Housing Board
rep.by its Administrative Officer,
Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore. ...R3 in WP.Nos.
7423, 7424 &
8171 of 1986
4.Lakshmi Card Clothing Manufacturing
Company Pvt Ltd. rep by its Joint
Managing Director, Kuppusamynaidupuram,
Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore.
(R4 impleaded vide court order dated
16.11.2018 in both WPMP.Nos.105
3/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
& 106 of 2015 respectively in both
WP.Nos.7423 & 7424 of 1986 by RMDJ) ...R4 in WP.Nos.
7423 & 7424 of
1986
5.V.N.A.S.Chandran
6.C.Selvarani
7.Subashini
8.Sreedharan
R4 to R6 rep.by their power agent
- R3 - Mr.V.N.A.S.Chandran
(R3 to R6 impleaded as per order
dated 05.11.2024 in WMP.No.
17764 of 2016 by PTAJ) ...R3 to R6 in
WP.No.16510 of
1990
9.The Joint Director of Town
& Country Planning Office,
I & II Floor, No.50, FCI Road,
Gandhimaanagar, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641004.
(suo motu impleaded as a party
respondent in all the above WPs
vide order dated 26.2.2025
by NAVJ) ...Respondent
in all the WPs
PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of
(i) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.905 Housing and Urban Development
4/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
dated 23.6.1986, quash the said proceedings dated 23.6.1986 and
consequently direct the exclusion of the lands of the petitioner from
Uppilipalayam Housing Scheme Phase-IV in 55, Uppilipalayam Village
Coimbatore Taluk Coimbatore District (WP.Nos.7423 & 7424 of 1986);
(ii) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.905 Housing and Urban Development
dated 23.6.1986, quash the said proceedings dated 23.6.1986 and
consequently direct the respondents the exclusion of the lands of the
petitioners from Uppilipalayam Integrated Urban Development Project
Scheme, Upplipalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District
(WP.No.8171 of 1986) and
(iii) a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st
respondent G.O.Ms.No.196 Housing and Urban Development dated
02.3.1988 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
and G.O.Ms.No.287 Housing and Urban Development dated 23.3.1989
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and quash the
same (WP.No.16510 of 1990).
For Petitioners in both
WP.Nos.7423 & 7424
of 1986 : Mr.N.Chandrasekharan
5/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
all the four petitioners in
WP.No.8171 of 1986 died
For newly impleaded P5 to P7
in WP.No.8171 of 1986;
For newly impleaded P8 to P11
in WP.No.8171 of 1986; &
For newly impleaded P15 to P18
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, SC
for Ms.P.Veena Suresh
For newly impleaded P12
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 : Mr.V.Raghavachari, SC for
M/s.ARK Law Associates
Advaidh Nela Kanttan
Sahaana Srivatsan
For newly impleaded P13
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, SC
Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam
For newly impleaded P14
in WP.No.8171 of 1986 : Mr.V.Karthik, SC for
M/s.B.Ravi Raja
For P2 to P5 in
WP.No.16510 of 1990
: Mr.P.R.Ramakrishnan, for
Ms.P.Veena Suresh
For State : Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP
For Housing Board : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
assisted by Mr.V.Gunasekar,
Standing Counsel
6/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
WP.No.7423 of 1986
etc. cases
For R4 in both WP.Nos.
7423 & 7424 of 1986
: Mr.V.Sanjeevi
For R3 to R6 in WP.No.
16510 of 1990 : Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, SC for
Mr.Roshan Balasubramanian
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed assailing the Notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Old Act) dated 02.3.1988 and the
Declarations under Section 6 of the Old Act dated 23.6.1986 and
23.3.1989 and seeking for a consequential direction for the exclusion
of the lands belonging to the respective writ petitioner from
Sowripalayam and Uppilipalayam Integrated Urban Development
Project Scheme.
2. The properties that are covered in these writ petitions are
situated at Sowripalayam and Uppilipalayam Villages. They were
acquired for Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme through a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Old Act in G.O.Ms.No.196 dated
02.3.1988 measuring 43.19 acres at Sowripalayam Village. Similarly, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Old Act was issued in
G.O.Ms.No.534 dated 28.5.1985 measuring 36.79 acres at
Uppilipalayam Village. Pursuant to that, after completing the
formalities, an enquiry under Section 5A of the Old Act was conducted
by the Land Acquisition Officer, in which, all the land owners raised
their objections for the acquisition of lands.
3. Thereafter, the objections of the land owners were
communicated to the Requisitioning Body, which recommended to
reject those objections. On considering the objections raised, the
Government overruled the same and the draft Declarations under
Section 6 of the Old Act were approved (i) in G.O.Ms.NO.287 dated
23.3.1989 in so far as Sowripalayam Village is concerned and (ii) in
G.O.Ms.No.905 dated 23.6.1986 in so far as Uppilipalayam Village is
concerned. The same were published in the Gazette and the substance
of the Declarations was also published in the newspapers. On
completion of the formalities, the draft Notification under Section 7 of
the Old Act was approved by the Collector through proceedings (i)
dated 02.6.1989 for Sowripalayam Village and (ii) dated 19.3.1987 for
Uppilipalayam Village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
4. Thereafter, notices were issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of
the Old Act to all the persons interested and an award enquiry under
Section 11 of the Old Act was conducted by the Land Acquisition
Officer. After completion of the award enquiry, the award was
pronounced vide (i) award No.1 of 1991 dated 22.3.1991 for
Sowripalayam Village and (ii) award No.1 of 1989 dated 23.5.1989 for
Uppilipalayam Village.
5. Pursuant to that, writ petitions were filed challenging the
acquisition proceedings and interim orders were granted safeguarding
dispossession of the land owners.
6. A batch of writ petitions came up for hearing and in W.P.No.
3693 of 1989 etc. cases dated 08.10.1991, the Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Old Act was quashed on the ground that it suffered
from vagueness. Pursuant to the said order, W.P.Nos.7423, 7424 and
8171 of 1986 along with other connected cases came up for hearing
on 22.10.1991 and by relying upon the earlier order, the acquisition
proceedings were quashed. Later, W.P.Nos.16510 and 16511 of 1990
came up for hearing and following the earlier orders, the acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
proceedings were quashed by order dated 26.11.1991. Thus, the
acquisition proceedings that were put to challenge in these writ
petitions were quashed in the year 1991.
7. After the writ petitions were allowed, Mr.G.K.Vijayakumar -
the original petitioner in W.P.No.16510 of 1990 sold the lands in
favour of respondents 3 to 6 therein through the sale deeds executed
on 27.1.1994.
8. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the above writ petitions
and other writ petitions, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) filed
W.A.No.1568 of 1994 etc. cases. The said batch of writ appeals came
up for hearing before the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court on
12.1.2015, on which date, they were disposed of by a common
judgment by remitting the matters back to the Writ Court with the
following directions :
"9. Thus, while allowing the writ appeals, we
remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge
with the following directions :
1. Learned counsels for the private
respondents are granted three weeks time to urge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
additional grounds as prayed for.
2. Counter affidavit by the appellant/
Government Department will be filed within two
weeks thereafter.
3. The respondents are at liberty to raise all
the grounds as are available to them arising from
the factual and legal situation post passing the
impugned order.
4. The appellants will also administratively
examine the plea raised before us by the learned
counsel for the private respondents/land owners
that on account of subsequent developments and
the ground reality of adjacent land, it is
impracticable today to utilize the land of the
respondents before us and as to whether the
appellants really now want to acquire the lands.
Such examination will take place within three
weeks of the communication of the order.
5. All the writ petitions will be listed for
directions/hearing on 04.3.2015 and it is for the
learned Single Judge to take up the matters for
final hearing on that day or any other convenient
day at the earliest, which the learned Judge finds
feasible.
6. In view of the age of the matters and the
requirement of expeditious disposal, these matters
be placed before R.Mahadevan,J on the said date.
7. The interim orders operating in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
the respondents during the pendency of the writ
petitions would stand revived and would continue
till the disposal of the writ petitions."
9. Pursuant to the said common judgment of the Hon'ble First
Bench of this Court dated 12.1.2015, the matters were listed for final
hearing before this Court.
10. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the legal heirs of deceased petitioners 1, 2 & 4 in W.P.No.
8171 of 1986 made the following submissions :
(a) Petitioners 1 and 3 in W.P.No.8171 of 1986 namely
Mr.L.Bakthavatsal and Mr.L.Venkatapathi died during the pendency of
the relevant writ appeal and M.P.No.42 and 43 of 2010 in W.A.No.
1324 of 1995 were filed to impead their respective legal heirs. The
second petitioner in W.P.No.8171 of 1986 namely Mr.L.Jaganathan
also died during the pendency of the relevant writ appeal and it was
recorded while allowing the said miscellaneous petitions by common
order dated 12.1.2015 subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- each towards
costs to the legal heirs by the State within three weeks. But, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
conditional order was not complied with and a memo was filed in this
regard. Since the said miscellaneous petitions and W.A.Nos.1568 of
1994 etc. cases were disposed of on the same day, but by two
separate orders, the names of the legal heirs were erroneously
recorded in the final common judgment passed in the said batch of
writ appeals without ascertaining as to whether the cost was paid as
was directed by the First Bench of this Court by way of a separate
order.
(b) Since the cost was not paid and the condition has not been
complied with, W.A.No.1324 of 1995 stood abated and consequently,
W.P.No.8171 of 1986, which was earlier allowed, will revive and the
order passed thereon will be binding on the official respondents. The
First Bench, while disposing of the writ appeals on 12.1.2015, gave a
specific direction in paragraph 9 of the common judgment directing the
TNHB to come up with a specific stand as to whether they really
wanted to utilize the lands considering the various subsequent
developments that had taken place. But, till date, no such stand has
been taken by the TNHB and this direction also has not been complied
with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
(c) The TNHB had taken a specific stand before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the appeals filed by the land owners in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.
13927 & 13928 of 1996 dated 27.9.2001 by filing an affidavit to
the effect that out of 455.08 acres, only 31.84 acres were taken
possession and utilized, that there was no land available to implement
the integrated scheme and that in spite of the same, the Government
has not abandoned the scheme. A similar stand was also taken
through the communication dated 28.1.2003 sent by the Executive
Engineer, Special Division-II, TNHB to the Managing Director, TNHB,
Nandhanam, Chennai-35 recommending for dropping the entire
acquisition proceedings. This decision was taken since several buildings
including hospitals, school buildings with playground and multi storied
buildings were put up by getting proper sanction and the funds allotted
to the project were also lying as a dead capital. However, after having
acquired a large extent of land in both Sowripalayam and
Uppilipalayam Villages, the TNHB is not giving up the land acquisition
proceedings since the original object of having an integrated urban
development scheme has become unworkable.
(d) There is a reference to an errata dated 14.8.1985 and it is
not known as to what amendment was made to the Notification under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
Section 4(1) of the Old Act and no publication was made and it is not
even available in the records. No one knows as to whether this errata
is for merely carrying out some corrections or a material change was
made to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Old Act, in which
case, the land owners should have been put on notice while inquiring
under Section 5A of the Old Act.
(e) Various objections were raised during the inquiry conducted
under Section 5A of the Old Act and none of the objections was
considered and they were mechanically rejected. On this ground alone,
the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. To
substantiate this submission, he relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
Velayuthamudaliar [reported in 2024 (1) CTC 495].
(f) No counter was filed in W.P.No.8171 of 1986 right through.
The counter came to be filed only in January 2025 and for the first
time, a stand was taken to the effect that the compensation amount
was deposited in revenue deposit. However, no revenue deposit was
made and no possession was taken. Therefore, the proceedings itself
will lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) (for short, the 2013 Act). To
substantiate this submission, he relied upon a judgment rendered by
me in the case of M.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[reported in 2020 (7) MLJ 734].
(g) The publication was not properly effected in the local
newspapers and hence, both the Notification under Section 4(1) and
the Declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act stand vitiated. To
substantiate this submission, he relied upon the decision of the First
Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnan Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu [reported in 2001 (4) CTC 108] and the decision of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chinnayya Gounder
Vs. State rep. by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing & Urban Development Department [reported in 2003
(2) MLJ 481].
(h) As per the integrated scheme, the entire lands are required
as a compact block, without which, the scheme will not be complete.
However, the proceedings have been dropped in some cases and in
many other cases, the lands have been withdrawn from the acquisition
proceedings and this cannot be done in an arbitrary fashion since it will
violate Article 14 of The Constitution of India. To substantiate this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
submission, he relied upon a common order passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Kovai Medical Centre Research &
Educational Trust rep.by its Trustee & Others Vs. State rep. by
the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban
Development Department [W.P.Nos.16417 of 1998 etc. cases
dated 30.8.2010] and
(i) There is absolutely no material available to show that the
State Government permitted the TNHB to proceed with any other
alternative scheme, in the absence of which, the TNHB cannot utilize
the lands, which are lying scattered, for any other purpose other than
the purpose, for which, the acquisition was made by the State.
11. Mr.V.Karthik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the newly impleaded 14th petitioner in WP.No.8171 of 1986, apart
from adopting the arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior
Counsel, submitted that in none of the counter affidavits that were
earlier filed, there was any reference to payment of compensation,
that for the first time, such a stand had been taken in the counter that
was filed in January 2025, that there is no material to show that the
compensation was deposited in the revenue deposit, that as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
consequence, the compensation had not been paid and the possession
had not been taken and that therefore, the entire acquisition
proceedings will stand lapsed.
12. Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the newly impleaded 13th petitioner in W.P.No.8171 of
1986 adopted the arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior
Counsel.
13. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the newly impleaded 12th petitioner in W.P.No.8171 of 1986,
made the following submissions :
(a) There is a selective release of lands by the Government in an
integrated scheme and the TNHB, instead of carrying out the main
object behind the acquisition, is attempting to use the scattered lands
for a different purpose and the same is not sustainable. To
substantiate this submission, he relied upon the decision of the First
Bench of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs.
Uma Maheswari Ramasamy [reported in 2011 (5) CTC 503].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
(b) Such discrimination will fall foul under Article 14 of The
Constitution of India. Once the scheme is not able to be implemented,
as is apparent from the stand taken by the TNHB in the affidavit filed
before this Court, the land acquisition proceedings will have to be
entirely given up and it cannot be done in a pick and choose manner.
To substantiate this submission, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
L.Krishnan [reported in 1996 (7) SCC 450].
(c) No new plan has been given for going ahead with a different
scheme till date in the available lands. The compensation amount has
not been paid and the possession has not been taken. Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act. To substantiate this submission, he relied upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.Devanathan &
Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to
Government, Chennai & Others [reported in 2023 (2) MLJ 277].
14. Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent in both WP.Nos.7423 & 7424 of 1986 made the following
submissions :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
(a) The respective writ petitioner namely Mr.R.Elangovan &
Mr.Parthiban were the original owners of the lands in Uppilipalayam
Village and the fourth respondent, through the registered sale deeds
dated 20.8.1993, purchased the lands measuring nearly acres 2.87
cents nearly after two years of allowing the writ petitions in 1991.
Subsequently, an extent of 7 cents of land was sold by the fourth
respondent in the year 2002 and the purchaser also constructed a
house in the said land.
(b) The writ appeals were filed with a substantial delay only in
the year 1994/1995 by the TNHB and in the meantime, the fourth
respondent purchased the property and their name got mutated in the
revenue records. Thereafter, the fourth respondent developed the
property by getting proper planning permission and the building plan
approval from the concerned Authorities and an apartment complex
was constructed consisting of six floors with 98 flats and all the 98
flats are occupied by the purchasers along with the undivided share.
(c) The property belonging to the fourth respondent falls in
Phase IV of Block No.4 in Uppilipalayam Village. In so far as Block No.1
is concerned, only an extent of acres 19.04 cents was taken over
possession, but it was not utilized. In Block No.2, out of acres 46.99
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
cents, an extent of acres 12.05 cents has been excluded. Out of this,
for acres 12.03 cents, the proceedings were quashed and the
Government excluded these lands and the remaining area of acres
20.57 cents was allowed to lapse. In Block No.3, the entire lands have
been developed and no land has been taken over possession. In Block
No.4, an extent of acres 4.60 cents has been taken over possession
out of acres 61.82 cents. In so far as Block No.5 is concerned, no land
acquisition proceedings were initiated since the entire extent of land
has been developed.
(d) Thus, the object, with which, the acquisition proceedings
were initiated for an integrated scheme no longer subsists.
He also adopted the arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior
Counsel with respect to the other aspects of challenge.
15. Mr.P.R.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners 2 to 5 in W.P.No.16510 of 1990, apart from adopting the
arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted
as follows :
(a) There are totally three blocks involved in Sowripalayam
Village, out of which, the lands in Blocks Nos.2 and 3 have already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
been dropped from the acquisition proceedings. What is available as on
date is only Block No.1 consisting of acres 43.91 cents and it is only
through this block, the access is available Block Nos.2 and 3. If Block
No.1 alone is subjected to acquisition, the lands in Block Nos.2 and 3
cannot be utilized.
(b) The inquiry under Section 5A of the Old Act was conducted in
a mechanical fashion and the objections were rejected and that itself is
a ground for interfering with the acquisition proceedings. There was an
order of stay of dispossession granted on 26.11.1991 whereas for the
first time, the TNHB has come up with the counter stating that
possession was taken over on 20.11.1991, which is six days prior to
the interim order granted by this Court.
(c) In the earlier counter affidavits, there was no whisper about
the possession being taken over by the TNHB. Apart from that, in the
reply that was filed in W.A.No.1568 of 1994, the TNHB took a very
specific stand that the scheme will be implemented only after taking
over possession of the land. Therefore, it is evident that no possession
was taken by the TNHB. The compensation amount also was not paid
and therefore, the the entire acquisition proceedings has lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
(d) The stand taken at paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, will not
apply to the petitioners since that was a case where initially, the owner
had invoked Section 48B of the Old Act seeking for reconveyance and
later resorted to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It was held that both
the stands cannot co-exist and that the Court did not go into the
question of deposit of compensation.
16. Mr.Sivanandaraaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No.16510 of 1990 made the
following submissions :
(a) The property was purchased only after the acquisition
proceedings were quashed in the year 1991. The objections that were
raised under Section 5A of the Old Act were not considered and they
were rejected in a mechanical fashion. The ground that was taken in
paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the
reply that was given in the counter affidavit at paragraph 7 would
show that the objections were not considered. Hence, the land
acquisition proceedings must be interfered on that ground alone. To
substantiate this submission, he relied upon the jugment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Singh Brar Vs.
Union of India [reported in 2013 (1) SCC 403].
(b) There is no parity while releasing the lands, which were the
subject matter of the same acquisition proceedings. The above writ
petitions were dealt along with W.P.No.16511 of 1990 whereas the
lands covered therein were released through G.O.Ms.No.179 dated
04.10.2024. If that is so, the lands covered in W.P.No.16510 of 1990
should also be released. To substantiate this submission, he relied
upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari
Ram Vs. State of Haryana [reported in 2010 (3) SCC 621] and in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Niranjan Singh [reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 186].
17. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the TNHB made the following submissions :
(a) The objections that were raised during the enquiry under
Section 5A of the Old Act were properly considered and only
thereafter, they were overruled and the Declaration was published
under Section 6 of the Old Act. Subsequently, the award enquiry was
completed and the award was also pronounced and the notice was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
served under Section 12(2) of the Old Act to the land owners.
(b) In the meantime, the acquisition proceedings came to be
challenged and an interim order was passed not to dispossess the land
owners. Thus, the entire procedure was properly followed and there is
no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.
(c) After the First Bench pronounced the orders in the batch of
writ appeals directing the TNHB to administratively examine the
feasibility of continuing with the acquisition proceedings and
considering the subsequent developments, a physical audit was
conducted and a report was given by the Executive Engineer
concerned. The relevant portions in the report that was relied upon by
the learned Additional Advocate General are extracted as hereunder :
“In Coimbatore District, Sowripalayam
Village and Uppilipalayam Village, the land was
acquired for Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood
Scheme. The acquired land spliced as Phase I to
Phase IV. The subjected case filed in the lands
covered in Phase IV. The lands situated in Phase IV
further divide as a block by follow :
Block Extent in Award Award Possession Possession Scheme Remarks
No. Acres passed not handed not implemented
Extent passed over handed
over
Sowripalayam Village
I 43.19 43.19 - 39.57 3.62 - WP.16510
of 1990
II 46.99 - 46.99 - - -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
III 69.75 - 69.75 - - -
Uppilipalyam Village
IV 61.82 61.82 - 4.60 57.22 4.60 WP.7423,
7424 &
8171/
V 58.61 - 58.61 - - -
As per the reference cited above, para 9(4)
in WA 1568, 1324, 1323 & 1322 of 1994 order dt.
12.01.2015 the site was inspected on 18.12.2024
by Thiru G.Jacob Nayagam, the Executive Engineer
& Ado and Thiru P.Vijayan, Assistant Engineer of
Coimbatore Housing Unit and find out the
feasibility of housing scheme as follows:
I.WP.16510 of 1990 – Sowripalayam Village:
1 Petitioner Name : G.K.Vijayakumar & Others
3 Extent : 12.20 acres
4 Present status of land : 1. Land is still vacant and full of light jungles
2. The land have the main road approach and
located nearer to residential area
3. The bus stand, railway station, hospital, major
educational institution and airport are all within
the 10 Km radius of the subject land
4. The housing scheme to be implemented in the
subject land is very much helpful to the general
public
5 Google map & inspection : Enclosed
photos
II. WP 8171 of 1986 – Uppilipalyam Village:
1 Petitioner Name : 1. L.Bakthavatsal & Others
2 S.F.No. : 181, 183/1, 184/1, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191 & 192
3 Extent : 36.79 acres
4 Present status of land 1. All portion of the land is still vacant
2. One temporary structure construction work is
under process in the northern portion of the
land (SF.No.181)
3. The land have the main road approach and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
located nearer to residential area
4. The housing scheme was already
implemented mid portion of the subject lands
5. The bus stand, railway station, hospital,
major educational institution and airport are
all within the 10 Km radius of the subject
land.
6. The housing scheme to be implemented in
the subject land is very much helpful to the
general public.
5 Google map & inspection : Enclosed
photos
III. WP.7423 of 1986 – Upplipalayam Village
IV. WP.7424 of 1986 – Sowripalayam Village :
1 Petitioner Name : 1. R.Elangovan
2. R.Parthiban
3 Extent : 12.92 acres
4 Present status of land : 1. The main road was formed named as perk’s
road over the subject lands of S.F.No.205,
206, 207 & 208.
2. In SF.No.205 part of southern part is still
vacant
3. Remaining portion of SF.No.205 four RCC
building and one portion of mansrover
apartment was constructed
4. One old asbestos godown is still there
5. In SF.No.206, mansrover apartment was
constructed
6. In SF.No.207 six RCC buildings was
constructed the portion between the building
are still vacant
7. In SF.No.208, major portion covered as
machester apartments, perks enclave building
8. The minor area used as a play ground by a
perks sports academy
9. The land have the main road approach and
located nearer to residential area
10. The bus stand, railway station, hospital major
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
education institution and airport are all within
the 19 Km radius of the subject land
11. The housing scheme to be implemented in the
vacant portion of the southern side of the
lands is very much helpful to the general
public.
5 Google map & inspection photos : Enclosed"
(d) In so far as W.P.No.8171 of 1986 pertaining to
Uppilipalayam Village is concerned, an extent of acres 36.79 cents is
available and there are only some temporary structures on the
northern portion of the land. The land has the main road approach and
it is located in close proximity to bus stand, railway station, hospital,
airport, etc. The TNHB is ready to implement the housing scheme in
the available vacant land.
(e) In so far as W.P.No.16510 of 1990 is concerned, an extent of
nearly acres 41.49 cents is available and it is located near a residential
area and it is in proximity to bus stand, railway station, hospital,
airport, etc. and the housing scheme can be implemented in the
subject lands.
(f) In so far as W.P.Nos.7423 and 7424 of 1986 are concerned, a
major portion of the lands has been utilized for putting up
constructions and in S.F.No.205, a small portion on the southern side
is still vacant and the same can be utilized for implementing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
housing scheme.
(g) There was no selective release of lands and wherever it was
found that it was not feasible to utilize the lands under the acquisition
proceedings, they were released and in so far as the petitioners are
concerned, a large extent of vacant land is available for implementing
the housing scheme.
(h) Even though originally the acquisition proceedings were
initiated for the integrated township, due to various developments that
took place subsequently, certainly the TNHB can implement the
housing scheme and the same will not, in any way, defeat the main
object of the original acquisition and the lands that were acquired for a
public purpose can also be utilized for any other public purpose.
(i) Possession has been taken over in accordance with law and
the lands have been handed over to the TNHB and the compensation
amount has also been deposited and withdrawn on the side of the
petitioners. Hence, there is no question of acquisition proceedings
getting lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
(j) In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned
Additional Advocate General relied upon the following :
(i) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
case of Chandraguda Ramgonda Patil and
Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
[reported in 1996 (6) SCC 405];
(ii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of C.Padma & Others Vs. The Deputy
Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu &
Others [reported in 1997 (2) SCC 627];
(iii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs.
Jaswant Singh [reported in 2003 (1) SCC
335];
(iv) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs.
Keeravani Ammal & Others [reported in 2007
(9) SCC 255];
(v) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Nagpur Metro
Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another [reported in 2016
(16) SCC 818];
(vi) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal And Others [reported in 2020 (8)
SCC 129];
(vii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies Vs. New
J.K.Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport
Contractors [reported in 2021 (16) SCC 808];
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
(viii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anita
Singh & Others [reported in 2023 (6) SCC 113];
(ix) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of NOIDA Vs. Darshan Lal Bohra
[reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1690];
(x) common judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of the Member
Secretary, CMDA, Chennai-8 Vs.
K.G.Chinnaiya Naidu (deceased) & Others
[W.A.Nos.1679 to 1682 of 2015 dated
09.8.2023];
(xi) judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of the Member Secretary,
CMDA, Chennai-8 Vs. P.R.S.Andal & Others
[W.A.No.3520 of 2019 dated 20.9.2023].
18. During the course of hearing, this Court suo motu impleaded
the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning Office, Coimbatore by
order dated 26.2.2025 and directed him to provide the particulars of
the various developments that had taken place during the pendency of
these writ petitions after getting necessary approval from the Planning
Authority and the building approval from the Corporation and as to
how the entire topography underwent a change. This Court wanted a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
report in order to satisfy itself as to whether, considering the
subsequent developments where several properties, which originally
formed part of the scheme, have been developed, the TNHB will be
able to implement the original object of an integrated township in the
available lands.
19. Pursuant to the above order, Mr.Selvendran, learned Special
Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the Town and Country
Planning Authority and thereafter, a report was submitted before this
Court. The relevant portions in the report are extracted as hereunder :
“…..
3. I state that pursuant to the directions of
this Hon’ble Court, inspection was done by this
respondent and this respondent has segregated
the various survey numbers in various blocks.
During inspection, it was found that following
development have taken place in the following
survey number and the same is extracted
hereunder. I am also annexing the plan map for
perusal of this Hon’ble Court:
S.No Survey No. & Writ Planning approval details Remarks
. Petition No.
1 WP.No.16510/1990 Nil Entire property is vacant and
Block I S.No.45, 46/1, there is no development and the
55, 56, 57, 58 and property has an access road
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
63/1, Savaripalayam
Village, Singanallur
Taluk, Coimbatore
District measuring
12.20 acres
2 WP.No.16510/1990 No approval granted by this Residential houses, commercial
Block II respondent Coimbatore & Assistant
(b) S.No.205/3A & 205/3E Commissioner, East, Coimbatore
residential apartment Corporation.
approval granted vide Since most of the land are
planning approval No.351/ developed, there is no scope for
2006 fresh development by the
(c) S.No.205/1, 205/2, Housing Board
206/2, 207/2 pt, 207/3,
208/3pt., 212/1Apt. approval
for construction of residential
apartment vide approval
(d) S.No.208/1A, residential
apartment granted vide
(e) S.No.208/1A and 19/1A Building, temple, burial ground,
residential house approval Government liquor shop are
granted vide approval available at present and no
No.45/2018 further development can take
(f) S.No.208/1 pt., 209/pt., place
210pt., school building
3 WP.No.16510/1990 No approval granted by this Residential houses and plots are
Block III respondent available, no further
development can take place
4 WP.No.8171/1986 Residential plot approval Except the land for which
Block IV (a) S.No. 181, granted vide approval No.LP/ approval was granted the rest of
183/1, 184/1, 185, DTCP/No.84/1993 measuring the land are vacant and
185, 187, 189, 190, 4.6 acres development can take place
191 and 192,
Uppilipalayam Village,
Coimbatore measuring
36.79 acres
5 WP.No.7423, 7424/ (a) Residential apartment Approval was granted after
1986 Block IV(b) approval granted vide verifying the no objection
S.No.205, 206, 207 & approval No.LP/DTCP No. certificate issued by Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
208, Uppilipalayam 256/2004 measuring 9472 Tahsildar (Land Acquisition).
Village, Coimbatore sq.mtrs. approval granted
measuring 12.92 acres vide approval No.24/2019.
6. Block V No approval granted by this Residential houses and plots are
respondent available, no further
development can take place.
4. I state that as per the directions of this
Hon’ble Court, this respondent has conducted
survey and filing the present affidavit with regard
to developments that had taken place in the
present writ petitions.
Hence, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to accept the present status
report and pass appropriate orders as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and thus render justice.”
20. Along with the above report, the google map of
Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme and certain photographs have
also been annexed showing the various developments that have taken
place both in Uppilipalayam and Sowripalayam Villages and the lands
that are presently lying vacant.
21. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record and more particularly the impugned orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
22. The following issues arise for consideration in these writ
petitions :
(1) Whether the non payment of costs that
was imposed for impleading the legal heirs of
the deceased petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P.No.8171
of 1986 has rendered the entire proceedings as
abated and consequently, the original order
that was passed in W.P.No.8171 of 1986 in the
year 1991 gets revived ?
(2) Whether the specific direction that was
issued by the First Bench at paragraph No.9 of
the common judgment dated 12.1.2015 to
examine as to whether the available lands can
be utilized effectively to implement the original
scheme has been satisfactorily explained by
the TNHB ?
(3) Whether the TNHB, after having taken
a specific stand before the Hon’ble Apex Court
in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.13927 & 13928 of
1996 dated 27.9.2001 and also in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
communication dated 28.1.2003 stating that
out of acres 455.08 cents, only an extent of
31.84 acres was taken over possession and
utilized, that there was no land available to
implement the integrated scheme and that the
Government has not abandoned the scheme
despite recommending for dropping the entire
acquisition proceedings, can now turn around
and take a stand that with the available lands,
they will now go ahead with the housing
scheme ?
(4) Whether the Government had released
the lands selectively in an arbitrary manner
and thereby such an action has vitiated the
entire acquisition proceedings ?
(5) Whether the objections that were
raised during the enquiry under Section 5A of
the Old Act were properly considered or they
were rejected in a mechanical fashion ? and
(6) Whether the acquisition proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
itself has lapsed since no possession was taken
over and no compensation was tendered/
deposited to the land owners?
Issue No.(1) :
23. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the fact remains that
the cost imposed by the First Bench was not properly tendered and
that unnecessary confusion was created by attempting to pay the costs
to the counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners in
WP.No.8171 of 1986. However, this Court does not want to get hooked
on such technicalities since there are other substantial grounds that
can be considered instead of foreclosing this litigation on a technical
ground.
24. This is more so since this litigation has been going on from
the year 1986 and the parties must know where they stand at this
length of time. In view of the same, the order passed by the First
Bench impleading the legal heirs of the deceased petitioners 1
to 3 in W.P.No.8171 of 1986 is acted upon and they are
brought on record now. Accordingly, the submissions made on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
behalf of the legal heirs by the respective learned Senior Counsel are
taken into consideration for the purpose of dealing with the substantial
issues that have been raised in these writ petitions. The first issue is
answered accordingly.
Issue No.(2)
25. The First Bench, while disposing of the writ appeals and
remanding the matters back to the Writ Court, specifically took into
consideration the fact that there are substantial subsequent
developments, which had taken place in the course of time and
therefore, a direction was given to the TNHB to administratively
examine as to whether it is practicable to utilize the lands for the
integrated township scheme, for which, the lands were originally
acquired and a time frame was given to submit a report in this regard.
26. Even though no report was submitted within the time frame,
this Court insisted the TNHB to submit a report during the course of
hearing. This Court also insisted the Town and Country Planning
Authority to submit a report in order to ascertain as to whether it is
administratively practicable to continue with the acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
proceedings with respect to the available lands.
27. In so far as the Sowripalayam – Uppilipalayam Integrated
Urban Development Scheme is concerned, it consisted of four phases.
Each phase consisted of different blocks of lands. Phase I consisted of
acres 27.24 cents of land in Uppilipalayam Village, which was acquired
and fully utilized for the scheme. In Phase II consisting of acres 60.47
cents of land, acquisition proceedings were initiated for acres 32.05
cents and only an extent of acres 2.88 cents was taken over by the
TNHB and it could not be utilized by the TNHB. Phase III consisted of
acres 87.01 cents of wet lands and no acquisition took place for the
entire extent of land.
28. In so far as Phase IV is concerned, it covered a total extent
of acres 280.36 acres divided into 5 blocks. Block No.1 at
Sowripalayam Village had an extent of acres 43.19 cents, out of which,
an extent of acres 19.04 cents was sought to be utilized, but it was
never utilized. In block No.2 at Sowripalayam Village, out of acres
46.99 cents, an extent of acres 12.03 cents was excluded from the
acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, even the remaining extent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
lands was allowed to lapse. With respect to block No.3 at
Sowripalayam Village measuring an extent of acres 69.75 cents, the
entire stretch of lands was utilized for constructing hospitals,
residential houses, commercial establishments, etc. and accordingly,
the entire block No.3 at Sowripalayam Village remained unutilized.
With respect to block No.4, which pertains to Uppilipalayam Village, a
total extent of acres 61.82 cents was sought to be acquired whereas
only an extent of acres 4.60 cents was taken over possession and the
remaining extent continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the
respective land owners. The last block namely block No.5 of
Uppilipalayam Village covered acres 58.61 cents and the acquisition
itself did not take place since it consisted of built up area and the
layouts, which were granted approval by the Coimbatore Municipal
Corporation.
29. Thus, out of the entire extent of acres 280.36 cents, from
block Nos.1 to 5 in Phase IV, the only extent of acres 32.22 cents was
handed over to the TNHB, out of which, only an extent of acres 4.60
cents was utilized and the remaining extent of acres 27.62 cents has
not been utilized. Further, the extent of acres 140.39 cents out of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
acres 280.36 cents is not available for implementation of the scheme.
30. The above was the status that was given by the Special
Tahsildar, Mettupalayam while filing the common counter affidavit in
the writ appeals during their pendency before the First Bench of this
Court. In the said counter affidavit, it was even stated that the
Government has not abandoned the scheme though sufficient lands
were not available to implement the scheme. It was under these
circumstances the First Bench of this Court had directed the TNHB to
take a practicable view as to whether they wanted to continue with the
acquisition proceedings.
31. The report that was submitted before this Court and which
has been extracted supra would show that in so far as Sowripalayam
Village is concerned, an extent of acres 12.20 cents is available. In so
far as Uppilipalayam Village is concerned, an extent of acres 36.79
cents is available. In so far as W.P.Nos.7423 and 7424 of 1986, which
pertain to Uppilipalayam Village, are concerned, a small portion is
available on the southern side and the balance portion is developed
after getting proper sanction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
32. It is also relevant to take note of the status report filed by
the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore. The
relevant portions have been extracted supra.
33. In so far as Sowripalayam Village is concerned, it is stated
that if at all any development is possible, it can be done only in block
No.1 covering acres 12.20 cents. The entire stretch of other lands are
all developed and there is no scope for the TNHB for undertaking any
such development. With respect to Uppilipalayam Village, out of acres
36.79 cents, approval was granted to the residential plots for an
extent of acres 4.60 cents and only the balance portion is available if
at all any development is undertaken by the TNHB.
34. Similarly, with respect to the lands covered under W.P.Nos.
7423 & 7424 of 1986, which also fell within block No.4, approvals have
been granted for residential apartments after the no objection
certificate was issued by the Special Tahsildar and in so far as this
portion of the land is concerned, there is no scope for any further
development by the TNHB. Similarly, for block No.5, it is made clear
that the residential houses and plots are available and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
scope for any further development by the TNHB.
35. The TNHB, after being aware of the above developments, is
now coming up with a new idea of housing scheme in the available
lands instead of proceeding with the integrated scheme, which was the
original objective of the land acquisition proceedings.
36. The integrated township means a self sustained township
planned and developed containing work place, places of residence
along with all attendant and infrastructure facilities like hospitals,
schools and other educational institutions. Considering the large extent
of lands that were originally planned to be acquired for the
Sowripalayam/Uppilipalayam Integrated Urban Development Scheme,
the object of the scheme was to have all these components of an
integrated township whereas over a period of time, the entire
topography of the place has completely changed due to various
developments that had taken place and what are available today are
some vacant lands at Uppilipalayam and Sowripalayam Villages to an
extent of nearly acres 36.79 cents and acres 12.20 cents respectively.
In view of the same, the TNHB is talking about a housing scheme,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
which was not the original intent of the land acquisition proceedings.
37. In the light of the above discussions, this Court holds that
the TNHB has not satisfactorily explained about the practical feasibility
of proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings with the
available extent of lands. The second issue is answered
accordingly.
Issue No.(3) :
38. In so far as the third issue is concerned, the above
discussions, while dealing with the second issue, also substantially
answer the third issue. The TNHB itself, at one stage, took a stand that
there was no land available to implement the integrated scheme.
However, it continued with the acquisition proceedings since the
Government did not abandon the project. In fact, a communication
was exchanged recommending for dropping the entire acquisition
proceedings in view of the subsequent developments that took place
and the funds allotted to the project were lying as a dead capital.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
39. The original object of the acquisition proceedings has already
been lost and it has become unworkable for the TNHB to satisfy the
original object, for which, the acquisition proceedings were initiated.
Therefore, the TNHB cannot be now allowed to change the whole
object of acquisition and utilize the remaining lands for a housing
scheme. No such permission has been granted by the State
Government in this regard and the TNHB cannot independently take
such a decision.
40. In order to appreciate the above findings, the following
tabular column containing the details of the extent of lands that were
acquired and what are now available is necessary :
Sowripalayam Total area 4(1) Lapsed Acquisition Stay Possession Possession
Uppilipalayam approved fresh proceedings granted taken but taken but
IUDP Scheme by TNHB proceeds yet dropped due by High lands un- lands
to initiate by to private Court (in utilized (in utilized (in
TNHB (in buildings (in acres) acres) acres)
acres) acres)
Phase I 27.24 - - - - 27.24
Phase II 60.47 28.42 - 29.17 2.88 -
Phase III 87.01 - 87.01 - - -
Phase IV -
Block 1 43.19 3.62 - 39.57 - -
Block 2 46.99 20.57 26.42 - - -
Block 3 69.85 - 69.85 - - -
Block 4 61.82 - - 57.22 - 4.60
Block 5 58.61 - 58.61 - - -
Total 455.18 52.61 241.89 125.96 2.88 31.84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
41. It is true that the lands that are acquired for a public purpose
can be utilized for a different purpose. However, the Court must
always keep in mind the main objective behind the acquisition
proceedings and in the case in hand, the objective no more subsists
due to various subsequent developments. Small portions of lands that
are available cannot be permitted to be utilized for a completely
different purpose, which will defeat the object of the very acquisition
proceedings itself. The third issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.(4) :
42. The fourth issue pertains to the arbitrary manner, in which,
the various extents of lands were released over a period of time by the
Government. It is quite evident from the records that a large extent of
lands was released for one reason or the other and thereby, out of the
original extent of acres 280.36 cents, what is sought to be utilized is
only an extent of acres 36.79 cents in Uppilipalayam Village and an
extent of acres 12.20 cents in Sowripalayam Village. In fact, one of the
adjacent lands, for which, W.P.No.16511 of 1990 was filed, came to be
released and as a result, W.P.No.16511 of 1990 itself was closed by
order dated 27.1.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
43. Thus, the lands have been selectively released from the
acquisition proceedings and it brings in arbitrariness on the part of the
TNHB in retaining certain lands alone and attempting to implement the
housing scheme in respect of the retained lands. The various land
owners, whose lands were acquired, stand on the same footing and if
the lands belonging to some of the land owners were released and for
some others, the lands are retained, obviously there is a discrimination
among the equals without there being a reasonable classification. This
obviously brings in the element of arbitrariness where the discretion
has been exercised according to the whims of the Authorities. This
attitude has been repeatedly deprecated by both the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as this Court on various occasions. Thus, the retention of
the lands belonging to the petitioners alone for coming up with a
housing scheme suffers from patent arbitrariness, which is violative of
Article 14 of The Constitution of India. The fourth issue is answered
accordingly.
Issue Nos.(5) & (6) :
44. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the other
two issues in the light of the findings rendered for issue Nos.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
to 4. Issue Nos.(5) and (6) are answered accordingly.
45. The entire confusion had taken place only due to the attitude
on the part of the TNHB. The above writ petitions came to be allowed
by order of this Court in the year 1991 and the acquisition proceedings
were quashed. The Government did not choose to file any appeal and
it is only the TNHB, which had chosen to file the writ appeals after a
substantial delay in the year 1994/1995. During the interregnum
period, third party interests came into existence like respondents 3 to
46. That apart, there was no occasion to take over possession of
the properties right through. As a result, there was absolutely no
progress. It was under those circumstances, the First Bench of this
Court thought it fit to direct the TNHB to first take a decision on the
feasibility to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. This Court has
already held supra that the original object has been lost and that there
is no practicable feasibility to proceed further with the acquisition
proceedings towards the integrated scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
47. Even in so far as the payment of compensation is concerned,
a huge controversy has arisen as to who has actually withdrawn the
compensation amount from the Court. A specific stand has been taken
by the parties by filing sworn affidavits to the effect that there was an
unholy alliance between the advocates, who had knocked off the entire
compensation amount without the concurrence of the parties. The
report that was received from the First Additional Sub- Court,
Coimbatore also states that none of the relevant original records was
available and that they are missing.
48. In view of the same, during the pendency of these writ
petitions, this Court acted upon the affidavits filed by one
Mr.R.Santhana Gopal along with the relevant documents and also the
sworn affidavit filed by one Ms.Aarthi Anand - P4 in W.P.No.16510 of
1990, had also taken into consideration the report received from the
First Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore and initiated a separate inquiry
against two advocates namely Mr.Govindaraju and Mr.P.Shanmugam.
A total sum of nearly Rs.8 Crores has been withdrawn from the Court
without the concurrence of the clients. Notices were sent to both the
advocates and a separate inquiry is under progress.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
49. Thus, neither the possession has been taken over effectively
nor the compensation amount has been tendered effectively and this
also becomes a ground so as not to permit the acquisition proceedings
to continue any further.
50. In the upshot of the above discussions, the acquisition
proceedings stands quashed and these writ petitions are
allowed as prayed for. No costs.
51. The compensation amount has been deposited by the State.
In view of the acquisition proceedings being quashed by this Court in
this common order, it has to go back to the Government. The question
that remains is as to who will repay back the amount to the
Government. The petitioners are taking a very specific stand that they
have not withdrawn the compensation nor had authorized any
advocate to appear for them and withdraw the compensation amount.
It is very clear from the records that the two advocates had withdrawn
the amount purportedly on behalf of their clients. The inquiry is
pending in this regard. Depending upon the final result in the inquiry,
directions will be issued to repay back the compensation to the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
52. With respect to the alleged misconduct that has been
committed in the withdrawal of the compensation amount for more
than Rs.8 Crores, a separate inquiry is being conducted and if, prima
facie, the materials satisfy this Court and the explanation given by the
concerned two advocates are not found to be satisfactory, this Court
will independently pass orders directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. Apart
from that, this Court will also direct initiation of such necessary
proceedings against the concerned two advocates.
53. For passing further orders with respect to the inquiry
pending against the two advocates, post on 28.4.2025 at 2.15 PM.
03.04.2025
Office to Note :
Carry out necessary amendments
before issuing the certified copies
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by its Commissioner & Secretary
to Government, Housing and Urban
Development Department,
Fort St.George, Madras-9.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), Housing Scheme II,
Collectorate, Coimbatore-18.
3.The Tamilnadu Housing Board
rep.by its Administrative Officer,
Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore.
4.The Joint Director of Town
& Country Planning Office,
I & II Floor, No.50, FCI Road,
Gandhimaanagar, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641004.
RS
.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
etc. cases
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
P.D.Common Order in
etc. cases
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:26:21 pm )
