[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Uma vs The Chairman on 6 January, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.12.2025
Pronounced on : 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.29954 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.23172 & 23173 of 2025
Uma ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
CMDA Complex,
E and C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
2. The Project Head,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Kamarajar Salai,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli – 627 011.
3. The District Collector,
The District Collectorate,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
4. The District Revenue Officer,
The District Collectorate,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
5. The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025
6. The Sub Registrar,
Melapahaya Sub Registrar Officer,
Tirunelveli.
7. The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli – 627 001. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the notification
for sale issued by the 2nd respondent in notification No.02/2025 dated
17.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Mahendra Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.S.Velmurugan
for R1 and R2
Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
for R3 to R6
Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian for R7
*****
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging a paper notification
issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17.09.2025 for sale of 859 plots for
the people belonging to the economically weaker sections.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-
The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after the Act) by way of
G.O.Ms.No.784, Housing and Urban Development Department dated
04.08.1989. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued under
G.O.Ms.No.1191 of the same Department dated 01.10.1990. An award came to
be passed under Section 11 of the said Act on 04.06.2001. These dates and
events are not in dispute.
3. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, she is the owner of S.Nos.75, 76, 77, 91 and 92 described in S.No.
1025 situated at Kulvanigapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Melapalayam
Sub Registrar Division, Tirunelveli District, by way of settlement deed dated
07.09.2012. According to the petitioner, the revenue records have been
mutuated in her name in January 2021. When she came over to Madurai, she
found that some earth work is being carried out by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and they claimed that the lands have been acquired. The petitioner had
filed W.P.(MD)No.18680 of 2021 seeking a mandamus forbearing the
respondents from laying of roads and putting up construction in S.No.1025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
This writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.11.2023, granting liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the order of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli,
dated 24.11.2022.
4. It is further contended in the writ petition that patta standing in her
name was mutated in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board behind her
back and she was forced to file W.P.(MD)No.10436 of 2024. This Court by an
order dated 05.06.2024, allowed the writ petition on the ground that the
mutation of the revenue records has taken place behind her back and remitted
the matter back to the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, to pass fresh orders
on merits after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the
present impugned notification has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board calling for applications from the economically weaker sections of the
Society for sale of 859 plot. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, when the property was settled in favour of the writ petitioner, it was
already an approved layout and the plots were standing separately in the name
of the petitioner. In such circumstances, notice should have been issued to the
writ petitioner calling the enquiry after notification under Section 4(1) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
Land Acquisition Act. However, no notice was issued. He further submits that
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.10.1990 and the award
was passed only on 04.06.2001 and therefore, the proceedings shall be deemed
to have been lapsed in view of the fact that the award has not been passed
within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the
Act as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act. He relied upon two
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Kumar Gandhi Vs.
Chandigarh Administration and others, (2018) 7 SCC 763 and Kunwar Pal
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 5 SCC 85.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further
submits that though the petitioner's name was reflected in the revenue records,
no notice was issued either for an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act or for
passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner or his
predecessors in title have never questioned the acquisition proceedings. In such
circumstances, the authorities cannot rely upon the stay order obtained by the
adjacent land owners to get over the period of limitation as prescribed under
Section 11-A of the Act. Any order passed in those proceedings would not be
binding upon the writ petitioner in view of the fact that neither herself nor her
predecessors in title were parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further
submits that the award should have passed within a period 2 years from
01.10.1990, namely, on or before 30.09.1992. Therefore, the acquisition
proceedings have got lapsed in the year 1992 itself. The petitioner had
purchased the property only in the year 2012, several years after the acquisition
proceedings have got lapsed. Therefore, the petitioner being an absolute owner
of the property and having the revenue records in her name, the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board authority cannot make a publication for sale of the plots which
is against her constitutional right as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further
submits that even before the property was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, approved layout was in existence. Therefore, the Government or the
Housing Board cannot issue notices to their predecessors in title. Once the title
is separate and distinct in the name of each one of the owners in the approved
layout, the authorities ought to have issued notices to each one of them. He
further submits that since the acquisition proceedings were not challenged by
the petitioner or by her predecessors in interest, there is no legal impediment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
whatsoever for the revenue officials to pass an award under Section 11 of the
Act. However, they have taken more than 11 years for passing the award. In
such circumstances, the acquisition proceedings have got lapsed in the year
1992 and the petitioner having purchased the property in the year 2012,
continues to be the absolute owner of the property and any notification issued
by the Housing Board for sale of her private property would be clearly in
violation of law and therefore, liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
Housing Board submits that other land owners have preferred writ petition
seeking a declaration that 4(1) notification and declaration under Section 6 of
the Act are null and void on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have
got lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act. These writ petitions came to be
allowed by the writ Court which was put to challenge in W.A.No.924 of 2012
batch cases. The appeal preferred by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was
allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 15.12.2017 with an observation that
if the period of stay is excluded, the award has been passed within a period of
two years. He further submits that the Special Leave Petition filed by the land
owners in S.L.P.(c)No.11966 to 11968 of 2019 was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 22.07.2025. A review petition filed by one of the land owners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
in Review Petition(civil) Diary No.54760 of 2025 was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 04.11.2025. According to him, the acquisition proceedings
having been challenged on the ground that they got lapsed under Section 11-A
has ordered in favour of the Housing Board and therefore, the same plea cannot
be raised by another adjacent land owner whose lands have been acquired under
the same acquisition proceedings. He also relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow and another Vs.
Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others, (1996) 3 SCC 124 and Shiv
Kumar and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 10 SCC 229).
10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Housing
Board further submits the writ petitioner, namely, Uma, claims title to the
property under a settlement deed said to have been executed by one
Chandramouli on 07.09.2012. In the present case, 4(1) notification has been
issued on 04.08.1989 and 6 declaration was made on 01.10.1990. The award
came to be passed on 04.06.2001. Only thereafter, the petitioner is said to have
acquired title to the property on 07.09.2012. In such circumstances, the
document in favour of the writ petitioner is clearly null and void. He further
submits that there is no pleading whatsoever with regard to the contentions
raised in the argument that the acquisition proceedings got lapsed in view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
non-passing of the award within a period of two years. In such circumstances,
the said submission cannot be raised in the argument stage. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
12. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the public
notification dated 17.09.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board inviting
applications from the economically weaker sections for allotment of Housing
Board plots.
13. The said notification is challenged primarily on the ground that the
acquisition proceedings have got lapsed as contemplated under Section 11-A of
the Act in view of the non-passing the award within a period of two years from
the date of issuance of declaration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
14. The Government had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
on 04.08.1989 and 6 declaration on 01.10.1990. The award has been passed on
04.06.2001. The property has been settled in favour of the writ petitioner on
07.09.2012.
15. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor his predecessor in title have
challenged the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, there was no legal impediment
for the revenue officials to pass an award as far as the petitioner is concerned.
The award having not been passed within a period of two years from the date of
6 declaration would automatically result in lapse of the acquisition proceedings.
However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Housing
Board submits that a large number of land owners whose lands were covered
under the same notification have challenged the acquisition proceedings before
the High Court and had obtained interim orders. The writ petition was also
allowed by the writ Court. However, the appeal filed by the Hosing Board, was
allowed on 15.12.2017 specifically on the ground that when the stay period is
excluded, the award has been passed within a period of two years from the date
of declaration. He extensively relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Division
Bench in W.A.No.924 of 2012 dated 15.12.2017. Therefore, it is clear that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
batch of writ petitions have been filed by the adjacent land owners under the
same acquisition proceedings and stay orders have been passed by the High
Court.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Abhey Ram
and others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 421. In paragraph
No.9 has held as follows:-
“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not
obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but
since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact,
prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of
the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted
the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the
petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands
till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given
extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in
various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v.
State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra,
Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17,
Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka
and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of
the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this
Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5-
A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry
under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the
declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not
be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a
consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be
applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that
behalf.”
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Om Prakash
Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 4 SCC 17. In paragraph Nos.70, 71 and
72 has held as follows:-
“70. Perusal of the opinion of the Full Bench in B.R.
Gupta-P would clearly indicate with regard to interpretation
of the word "any" in Explanation 1 to the first proviso to
Section 6 of the Act which expands the scope of stay order
granted in one case of landowners to be automatically
extended to all those landowners, whose lands are covered
under the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act,
irrespective of the fact whether there was any separate order
of stay or not as regards their lands. The logic assigned by the
Full Bench, the relevant portions whereof have been
reproduced hereinabove, appear to be reasonable, apt, legal
and proper.
71. It is also worth mentioning that each of the
notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act was composite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
in nature. The interim order of stay granted in one of the
matters i.e. Munni Lal and confirmed subsequently have been
reproduced hereinabove. We have also been given to
understand that similar orders of stay were passed in many
other petitions. Thus, in the teeth of such interim orders of
stay, as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that
during the period of stay the respondents could not have
proceeded further to issue declaration/notification under
Section 6 of the Act. As soon as the interim stay came to be
vacated by virtue of the main order having been passed in the
writ petition, the respondents, taking advantage of the period
of stay during which they were restrained from issuance of
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, proceeded further and
issued notification under Section 6 of the Act.
72. Thus, in other words, the interim order of stay
granted in one of the matters of the landowners would put
complete restraint on the respondents to have proceeded
further to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act. Had
they issued the said notification during the period when the
stay was operative, then obviously they may have been hauled
up for committing contempt of court. The language employed
in the interim orders of stay is also such that it had completely
restrained the respondents from proceeding further in the
matter by issuing declaration/notification under Section 6 of
the Act.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
18. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that
when an order of interim stay has been granted even in respect of the some of
the landowners who had challenged the acquisition proceedings, the hands of
the officials would be tied from proceeding under the Act. In a common
notification, when several lands are sought to be acquired, the authorities have
to conduct the award enquiry commonly for all of them. They cannot segregate
the land owners who have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and then
proceed with the award enquiry. No purpose would be served in passing the
award with regard to the some smaller extent of land (whose land owners have
not challenged the acquisition proceedings) when the acquisition proceedings in
respect of larger extent of land have been stayed by the High Court. In case
those writ petitions are allowed, the entire project would have to be recalled.
Therefore, the authorities cannot be found fault for not proceeding with the
award enquiry with regard to smaller extent land owners.
19. In the present case, the patta standing in the name of the writ
petitioner was mutated in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by way of
an order of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli on 24.11.2022. This order
was put to challenge by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10436 of 2024. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
writ petition was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before
passing of such order and it was remitted back. After remand, order was passed
by the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, on 23.04.2025 rejecting the request
of the petitioner for transfer of patta in her name. This order has not been put to
challenge by the petitioner.
20. In view of the above said deliberations, it is clear that even though the
petitioner or her predecessor in title have not challenged the acquisition
proceedings, the stay order obtained by her adjacent land owners under the
same acquisition proceedings had resulted in postponement of the award
enquiry. The Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.924 of 2012 batch cases, dated
15.12.2017 had found that if the stay period is excluded, the award proceedings
are within a period of two years. This order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court also. The petitioner having purchased the land after the date of
award, would not have any right to contend that the acquisition proceedings
have got lapsed for non-passing of the award as contemplated under Section 11-
A of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
21. In the result, there are on merits in the writ petition and the writ
petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ
miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
06.01.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
RJR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
CMDA Complex,
E and C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
2. The Project Head,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Kamarajar Salai,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli – 627 011.
3. The District Collector,
The District Collectorate,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
4. The District Revenue Officer,
The District Collectorate,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
5. The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
6. The Sub Registrar,
Melapahaya Sub Registrar Officer,
Tirunelveli.
7. The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli – 627 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre-delivery order made
in
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm )
