Back
Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
V. Chandrasekaran & Another
Versus
The Administrative Officer & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6342-6343 OF 2012
Decided On : 18-09-2012
AIR 1975 SC 2112; AIR 1996 SC 540; JT (1995) 6 SC 274; AIR 1996 SC 1170; (1996) 11 SCC 698; AIR 1996 SC 2677; (1995) 5 SCC 335; (1995) 2 SCC 528; (2008) 9 SCC 177; (2009) 10 SCC 689 - Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Relief granted to the parties who moved the Court immediately after the cause of action arose cannot be taken advantage of by those who waited and came to Court belatedly. (Para 10)
AIR 1993 SC 2276; (1996) 6 SCC 267; AIR 1997 SC 2366; AIR 1997 SC 2564 - Relied upon
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 11 and 18 - If the acquisition proceedings are quashed in toto, the tenure-holder/person interested will be entitled to re-conveyance on refund of the compensation amount - However quashing of notification in an individual writ petition cannot be treated as quashing entire proceeding.(Paras 12 and 13)
AIR 1995 SC 2244; (1995) 3 SCC 128; AIR 1999 SC 3822; AIR 2010 SC 2430; AIR 1997 SC 2564 - Relied upon
(d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Person not challenging the proceedings nor filing objections u/s 5-A - Cannot take advantage of quashing declaration u/s 6 in some other case. (Para 15)
AIR 2010 SC 2430 - Relied upon
(e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 and 11 - Time limitation for making the award - Effect of delay - Does not divest the acquired property. (Para 16)
AIR 2010 SC 2430; (1995) 6 SCC 31 2430; U.P. Jal Nigam; (1996) 6 SCC 424; (2000) 4 SCC 322; AIR 2005 SC 492 - Relied upon
(f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 r/w section 21, General Clauses Act - Once land is taken possession of and vested in State, proceedings cannot be withdrawn and land cannot be restored to tenure-holder. (Para 17)
AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1970 SC 1576; AIR 1993 SC 2517; (1993) 2 SCC 84; (2011) 11 SCC 100 - Relied upon
(g) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 16, 17 and 48 - After vesting of land, tenure-holder becomes persona non grata - Purpose for which the land is put to use is no concern of him - Neither he can claim it back nor the State can re-convey then same. (Para 22)
AIR 1957 SC 344; AIR 1977 SC 448; (1997) 5 SCC 432; AIR 1996 SC 1296; (1996) 6 SCC 405; AIR 1997 SC 2703; (2004) 4 SCC 460; (2005) 12 SCC 508; (2011) 9 SCC 354 - Relied upon
(h) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Transfer must be for consideration, without misrepresentation or fraud by person having requisite power to transfer - It must be in good faith - Purchaser must take care to ascertain the requisites of transfer. (Para 23)
AIR 1958 SC 183; AIR 1969 SC 401; AIR 1981 SC 102; AIR 1988 SC 299; JT (2001) 10 SC 42 - Relied upon
(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Original tenure-holders neither filing any objection under section 5-A nor challenging the proceedings, and withdrawing compensation - Successor-in-interest challenging proceedings after lapse of more than two decades - Not permissible. (Para 30)
(1995) 4 SCC 428; (1994) 4 SCC 67; (2011) 10 SCC 420 - Relied upon
(j) Administration of Justice - Judicial propriety - He who seeks equity must do equity - Persons approaching Court not with clean hands cannot be granted any relief. (Para 34)
AIR 1993 SC 852; (1995) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1997 SC 1236 - Relied upon
(k) Administration of Justice - Process of law - Abuse of - A litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions - He cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law for personal gains. (Paras 36 to 38)
(2010) 2 SCC 114; (2010) 10 SCC 677; (2011) 7 SCC 69; (2012) 5 SCC 370; (2011) 8 SCC 249 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Land of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, original tenure-holder, acquired in 1980s. He neither filed an objection u/s 5-A nor challenged the proceedings; and accepted and withdrew the compensation amount.
Appellant coming into possession of suit land on the basis of forged documents and challenging the acquisition proceedings after more than two decades on the basis of quashment of notification of declaration u/s 6 relating to another land.
High Court dismissed the petition.
Result : Appeal dismissed with cost and directions.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The land acquisition process involves multiple stages, including issuance of notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, and award of compensation. If the declaration under Section 6 is quashed in toto and no subsequent declaration is issued, the entire acquisition proceedings are considered to have lapsed (!) .
A person who purchases land after the issuance of a Section 4 notification cannot challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings, as the sale does not confer good title, and their remedy is limited to claiming compensation (!) (!) .
The rights of the original landowners or interested parties are limited once the land has vested in the State, especially after possession has been taken and land is vested free from encumbrances. Such vested land cannot be divested or restored to the original owner, even if the proceedings are later challenged or quashed (!) (!) .
The transfer of land by persons who did not have valid title, especially after the land has vested in the State, is generally considered illegal and void. Subsequent purchasers cannot claim rights through such transfers, and their sale deeds hold no legal validity (!) .
The conduct of the parties, including acceptance of compensation under protest, and the timing of challenges to acquisition proceedings, significantly influence the legal outcome. Delay in challenging proceedings, especially after land has vested and possession has been taken, tends to bar relief (!) (!) .
The principles of equity and estoppel apply, meaning that parties who knowingly accept benefits or remain silent when entitled to object cannot later challenge the proceedings. They are estopped from denying the validity of the acquisition or claiming rights inconsistent with their conduct (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize the importance of approaching proceedings with clean hands and candour. Misleading the court or engaging in fraudulent conduct disqualifies parties from obtaining equitable relief (!) (!) .
Once land is vested in the State, it cannot be divested or reconveyed to interested parties, and the proceedings cannot be withdrawn or abandoned, especially after possession has been taken (!) (!) .
The validity of subsequent transactions depends on the original title and the legality of the transfer. Transfers made without proper title or in violation of statutory provisions are invalid and do not affect the vesting of the land in the State (!) (!) .
The document underscores the importance of transparency, honesty, and adherence to legal procedures in land acquisition and transfer processes. Any collusion, fraud, or misconduct by officials or parties involved can lead to the nullification of transactions and further legal action (!) (!) .
The courts are cautious in granting relief to parties who have acted in bad faith, engaged in misconduct, or used unfair means to obtain possession or benefits from public land. Such parties are often denied equitable relief and may be subject to costs and legal consequences (!) (!) .
The principles of law reaffirm that land once vested in the State, free from encumbrances, remains with the State and cannot be reclaimed by original owners or interested parties, regardless of the circumstances, unless specific statutory provisions provide otherwise (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Judgment :
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 805806 of 2011, by which, the Division Bench reversed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, dated 1.11.2010 passed in relation to land acquisition proceedings.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:
A. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), was issued on 15.5.1978 with respect to land measuring 58.59 acres, in the revenue estate of Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu, including the suit land measuring 2.26 acres in Survey Nos. 283/1 (extent of 27 cents), 284/1 (extent of 70 cents), 284/2 (extent of 65 cents) and 284/3 (extent of 64 cents). As the provisions of the Urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Act were not invoked, the persons interested were at liberty to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the said land was issued on 6.6.1981. Very few among the persons interested, challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing 8 writ petitions, including Writ Petition Nos. 8897 and 8899 of 1983 etc. which were filed by some of the original tenure-holders of the suit land on several grounds. However, the said petitioners did not challenge the acquisition proceedings so far as the suit land is concerned, rather they chose to restrict their cases to the other parts of their lands. The batch of said writ petitions was allowed by way of a common judgment and order, dated 16.12.1983, quashing the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted fairly, and that the objections raised by the said writ petitioners under Section 5-A, were also not dealt with properly. However, the learned Single Judge upheld the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and hence, granted liberty to the Government of Tamil Nadu to continue with the said acquisition proceedings, in accordance with law.B. Being aggrieved by this, the writ petitioners including the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 214 to 225 and 435 of 1984, before the Division Bench of the High Court, against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1983, praying for quashing of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, as well. The Government did not challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.1983. The said writ appeals were allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, and the said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, only in respect of the land, which constituted the subject matter of the aforementioned appeals, was quashed. Against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, the Government of Tamil Nadu preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.1992. Thus, those orders attained finality.C. In the meantime, an Award was passed with respect to the said land, including the suit land, on 28.6.1983, to the extent of 4.26 acres i.e. Survey Nos. 283/1, 284/1 and 284/3. D. A second batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, as well as the Award. All the said writ petitions were allowed, following the earlier judgments dated 16.12.1983 and 23.8.1985 vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1986.E. A second award was made on 14.8.1986, in relation to the remaining part of said land, including a part of the suit land, i.e. Survey No. 284/2.F. So far as the suit land is concerned, the persons-interested/tenure holders never filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, and nor have they challenged the acquisition proceedings, at any stage. Instead, they accepted the compensation amount under protest. Possession of the suit land was taken over by the authority subsequently. There is no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
