Madras High Court
Irene Jose vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 October, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
2025:MHC:2346
W.P.No.10939 of 1986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.10939 of 1986
& W.P.M.P.No.102 of 2015
Irene Jose ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Madras – 600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Nandanam, Madras – 600 035.
3. The Special Tahsildar III,
Land Acquisition,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
331, Anna Salai,
Madras – 600 035 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus mandatorily directing the
respondents herein to forebear from acquiring the piece of land
belonging to the petitioner and more fully described in Schedule
hereunder pursuant to the notification G.O.Ms.No.1056 dated 11.10.1985
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
W.P.No.10939 of 1986
on the ground that the said acquisition is unconstitutional, illegal, null
and void; awarding cost of this petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
For Mrs.Anitha Thomas
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jayapaul
Standing Counsel for TNHB
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed forbearing the respondents
from acquiring the piece of land that belongs to the petitioner, pursuant
to the notification in G.O.Ms.No.1056 dated 11.10.1985 on the ground
that entire acquisition proceeding is illegal and unconstitutional and
ultra-vires.
2. The main writ petition was originally allowed by this court
and aggrieved by the same the first and second respondents preferred an
appeal in W.A.No.1326 of 1995 along with a batch of appeals. The
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 12.01.2015, set
aside the order passed by this Court and remanded back the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
for fresh hearing with directions. The Division Bench also permitted the
petitioner to urge all other points which are available now. After
remittance, the petitioner raised additional ground in support of his writ
petition in W.P.M.P.No.102 of 2015.
3. The petitioner had purchased the land ad measuring five
grounds in new S.No.2935 (part) suituated at Nammalwarpet,
Purasawalkam, Madras, by the registered sale deed dated 02.04.1981.
Out of the total extention of the said land, a piece of the land was sold
out by the petitioner to the third party. Insofar as the remaining property
is concerned, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the
same till today. While being so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.1056
dated 11.10.1985, thereby issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the
Central Act 1 of 1894 viz., Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Old Act”) for the purpose of a housing scheme to be
executed by the second respondent herein. However, the second
respondent neither framed any scheme for housing accommodation nor
published any such scheme as required by law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
4. Thereafter, the third respondent issued notice under Rule 3
of the Rules framed under the Old Act. The petitioner submitted
objections on 09.01.1986. However, the objections were overruled by the
third respondent. But the land comprised in survey No.2953/1 to 4
belonging to other four persons were exempted from the land acquisition
proceedings. Further the notification was issued for the enquiry as
contemplated under Section 3(b) of the Old Act. Further subsequent
objections were also rejected by the third respondent. Initially, the entire
acquisition proceeding was quashed by this Court and aggrieved by the
same the respondents 1 & 2 filed writ appeal. The Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court set aside the order passed in the writ petition and
remitted the matter back for fresh consideration with 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 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 liberty to raise all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
grounds as are available to them arising from the factual and
legal situation post passing of 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 utilise 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/hearings on 04.03.2015 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 the
respondents during the pendency of the writ petitions would
stand revived and would continue till the disposal of the writ
petitions.”
5. Thereafter the petitioner filed petition to raise additional
grounds in W.P.M.P.No.102 of 2015 which are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
(i) The third respondent failed to follow mandatory provisions as
contemplated under the Rules, while conducting enquiry under Section
5-A of the Old Act.
(ii) The third respondent also failed to issue notice to the requiring
body viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as contemplated under Rule 3
of the Old Act. Therefore, no reply was received from the requiring body
and the objection raised by the petitioner was not forwarded to the
requiring body before holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Old Act.
(iii) Though the third respondent excluded the land ad measuring
162 grounds and 1110 sq.ft., from the acquisition proceedings, it failed to
exclude the subject land from the acquisition proceedings by considering
the objections raised by the petitioner, because of the writ petition filed
by her.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had put up a big structure in the subject land
by spending huge money. Therefore, the petitioner raised objections to
exclude the subject property from the acquisition proceedings. When the
land in respect of 93 grounds of other four house owners were excluded
from the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner is also entitled for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
exclusion of the land owned by her. Further the third respondent
excluded 960 sq.ft., out of 4 grounds and 1450 sq.ft. Further, the
petitioner could not construct any building in the left over place. The
third respondent failed to mention the specific public purpose for the
acquisition of the land. Therefore, the petitioner could not submit proper
objection.
6.1. He further submitted that as per the notification, the subject
land was acquired for the purpose of housing scheme for the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings were
initiated to allot the land to rich State government officials. Further in
spite of passage of 40 years, nothing has been done to enforce the
scheme. Though an award was passed and a sum of Rs.1,92,952.40 was
determined as compensation, the petitioner did not receive any
compensation so far and the possession of the subject property has not
been taken over by the third respondent. Therefore, the entire land
acquisition proceedings is lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlment Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the New Act”). Further
the award under Section 11 of the Old Act came to be passed more than
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
five years prior to the commencement of the New Act but the
compensation has neither been paid to the owner, nor has been deposited
to the Court by the third respondent. Further, when the physical
possession has not been taken over, then the entire acquisition
proceedings shall be deemed to be lapsed.
7. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent and on the submission made by the learned Additional
Advocate General, it is revealed that the writ petition was originally filed
for prohibiting the respondents from acquiring the land as per the
notification since the entire land acquisition proceedings is
unconstitutional and illegal. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding
cannot be challenged under the New Act, by way of raising new grounds.
The petitioner is a subsequent purchaser from the original land owner by
way of registered sale deed dated 02.04.1981 registered vide document
No.1565 of 1981. The said land along with other lands are essentially
required by the second respondent for construction of houses for 320
middle income group employees of the Income Tax Department.
Therefore, there is absolutely no possiblity to reconvey the land to the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
7.1. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted
that even during the award enquiry, the petitioner was not present. In
fact, the petitioner has no right over the property. According to the
petitioner, she had purchased the subject property by the registered sale
deed vide document No.1565 of 1981 from one N.Munuswamy
Mudaliar, M.Chinnaraj, M.Thiagarajan, N.Kannan, K.Narayanaswamy
and K.Ganesan. The vendors are not original land owners and they have
not proved their title over the subject property. As per the revenue
records, one N.Munuswamy Mudaliar was the original owner for the land
and he also did not turn up for the enquiry. Further the petitioner also
failed to produce any document in support of her evidence. The said
N.Munuswamy Mudaliar is only treated as interested person for claiming
possession.
7.2. In pursuant to the issuance of the government order in
G.O.Ms.No.1056, notice was issued on 30.10.1985. The declaration
under Section 6 of the Old Act was made on 22.12.1986. In respect of the
land comprised in survey No.2935 (part), after completion of award
enquiry, the award was passed in award No.2 of 1988 dated 22.12.1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
Insofar as the land under the same acquisition proceedings is concerned,
the second respondent approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Crl.A Nos.9942 & 9943 of 2014 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India by an order dated 28.10.2014 set aside the order passed by this
Court and granted liberty to the land owners to furnish particulars of
their ownership in respect of the subject lands, to the State government
and the State government was directed to reconsider the claim of the
owners for conveyance under Section 48-B of the Old Act.
7.3. Further similar writ petitions were filed challenging the
same acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.16632 & 16633 of 2016 filed
by the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, in
respect of the land ad measuring 103 grounds and 802 sq.ft., comprised
in survey Nos.2930/1, 2930/2, 2931, 2932/1 and the same were allowed
by this Court by an order dated 14.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the
second respondent preferred appeals in W.A.Nos.1251 & 1252 of 2023
and the same were allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
by the judgment dated 15.09.2025, thereby setting aside the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and upheld the acquisition proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
7.4. Further the petitioner cannot claim any remittance under
Section 24(2) of the New Act, since the award of compensation was
initially deposited in the Reserve Bank of India and was subsequently
deposited in the City Civil Court, Chennai in Award No.2 of 1988, based
on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Further the
physical possession of the petitioner's land has already been taken over
by the third respondent and was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing
board. Therefore now the subject land is vested with the second
respondent. The petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser of the land, is
not the “land owner” as defined under Section 3(r)(i) of the New Act and
is also not the “person interested” as defined under 3(x)(i) of the New
Act. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The petitioner had purchased the subject land by the
registered sale dated 02.04.1981 vide document No.1565 of 1981.
Section 4(1) notification was issued on 30.10.1985, in respect of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
which was purchased by the petitioner comprised in Survey No.2935
(part) situated at Nammalwarpet, Purasawalkam, Chennai, to an extent of
five grounds. The declaration notice was issued on 22.12.1986 and the
award came to be passed in Award No.2 of 1988 dated 11.12.1988.
Further, the award amount has been deposited before the City Civil
Court, Chennai, only on 29.06.2012. The symbolic possession of the
subject property was taken on 26.07.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted representation for re-conveyance of the subject land and the
same was also rejected.
10. The subject land was purchased by the petitioner from one
N.Munuswamy Mudaliar and five others who were the original owners
of the subject property, by the sale deed dated 02.04.1981 registered vide
document No.1565 of 1981, claiming the right and title over the property
comprised in Survey No.2935 – part, R.S.No.2935/2 to an extent of five
grounds. However the said land is essentially required by the second
respondent for the construction of 320 MIG flats for the Income Tax
Department at Baracca Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai. The subject land
is also situated within the housing board scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
11. That apart, during the enquiry the said Munuswamy
Mudaliar did not appear and he had only life interest in respect of the
subject property. The interested person viz., Tmt. Irene Jose, the
petitioner herein also did not turn for award enquiry. In the affidavit filed
in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that she
purchased the above mentioned land from the sons of Narayanaswamy
Mudaliar by the sale deed dated 02.04.1981. Therefore, she is the owner
of the subject land. Initially this Court by an order dated 11.12.1986,
granted interim stay. Subsequently, the stay was confirmed with regard to
taking possession of the subject land by an order dated 24.09.1987.
Therefore, as per the revenue records the said Munuswamy Mudaliar is
entitled to enjoy the subject property till his life time and he has no
alienable right over the property. Hence, the compensation award amount
was deposited in the City Civil Court, Chennai, as contemplated under
Section 30 & 31(2) of the Old Act. Therefore, the petitioner, being a
subsequent purchaser, allegedly purchased the subject land from one
Munuswamy Mudaliar, who had no title or right to alienate the said
property. Further the award amount has already been deposited in the
City Civil Court, Chennai in L.A.O.P.No.40 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
12. Insofar as the possession of the subject property is
concerned, already it was taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu
and it was handed over to the second respondent as early as on
26.07.2005. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the land
acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the New Act. Further, the
petitioner is not coming under Section 3(r)(i) of the New Act, since the
said Section defines the “Land Owner” as “whose name is recorded as
the owner of the land or building or part thereof”. Further Section 3(x)(i)
of the New Act defines the “Person Interested” as “all persons claiming
an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of
land under this Act”. Therefore, the petitioner will not come under the
category of “land owner” or the “person interested”, to challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
13. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is very much in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioner failed to produce any
relevant document to prove the possession and enjoyment of the property
comprised in survey No.2935/2. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
challenge the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the New
Act. The scope of the challenge of the original land acquisition
proceedings cannot be expanded while seeking relief under Section 24(2)
of the New Act. Therefore, once the land acquisition proceedings are
completed in all respect and the reconveyance application was rejected
by the government, the erstwhile owners cannot challenge the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act once again under
Section 24(2) of the New Act, for the purpose of seeking the declaration.
14. As per the award dated 22.12.1988 in Award No.2 of 1988,
the entire compensation amount was deposited before the Reserve Bank
of India and subsequently deposited before the City Civil Court,
Chennai, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on
29.06.2012. The possession of the subject land was also taken over on
26.07.2005. In fact, the request made by the petitioner for reconveyance
of the subject property was also rejected by an order dated 02.02.2015.
That apart, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1251 &
1252 of 2023 by the judgment dated 15.09.2025 upheld the land
acquisition proceedings which is the subject matter of the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
15. Therefore, if at all the compensation has not been received
by the erstwhile owners of the acquired land, it is left open to them to
withdraw the compensation amount along with interest, if any, by
following the procedure as contemplated under law. However, the land
acquisition proceedings completed in all respects, even prior to the New
Act, cannot be challenged. The twin conditions as contemplated under
Section 24(2) of the New Act, have not been established for the purpose
of seeking declaration. In the case on hand, both posessesion as well as
deposit of compensation were made even prior to the New Act.
16. In veiw of the above discussions, the writ petition is devoid
of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Madras – 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Madras – 600 035.
3. The Special Tahsildar III,
Land Acquisition,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
331, Anna Salai,
Madras – 600 035
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Order in
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 08:40:01 pm )
