IMPORTANT POINTS
Unless the declaration under Section 6 or the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is explicitly quashed in toto or in its wholeness by the Court, benefits of relief granted by the Court would be effective only qua the parties before it.
Only owners on the date of notification u/s 4, LA Act can challenge the acquisition proceedings not the purchasers after vesting of the land into the Government.
Having same survey number does not make the owners co-owners.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Precedent – In persona or in rem – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 and 6 – Respondents relying on A.S. Naidu case contending that Supreme Court quashed the entire proceeding u/s 4 and 6 – Unless the declaration under Section 6 or the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is explicitly quashed in toto or in its wholeness by the Court – Benefits of relief granted by the Court would be effective only qua the parties before it – In A.S. Naidu case proceedings u/s 4 not challenged – Challenge to proceedings u/s 6 – Held vitiated – Notification was quashed – Required to be issued afresh – Limitation period for making declaration u/s 6 had expired and it was impossible to issue another declaration – Therefore acquisition proceeding was quashed – It cannot be said that the Court had quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and that too in rem. (Para 11)
       (1997) 5 SCC 421 – Relied upon
       (b) Administration of Justice – Delay and laches – Respondents purchasing lands after acquisition and vesting in Government – Owner not challenging the same, rather accepting compensation and allowing the land to be vested in State – Respondents waited for others to get relief – Trying to jump the bandwagon – Not permissible – Even otherwise respondents were not owners of land on date of notification u/s 4 – Have no locus to challenge the same. (Para 12, 14, 15)
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 and 6 – In A.S. Naidu case acquisition proceedings quashed – A.S. Naidu having land by the side of P. Velu, Vendor of the respondents – Respondents claiming Naidu and Velu to be co-owners and therefore same relief as Naidu – Having same survey number does not make the owners co-owners – No evidence that Naidu was authorised to litigate on behalf of Velu – Respondents’ claim specious – Not acceptable. (Para 16)
       (1991) 4 SCC 17; (2003) 1 SCC 526 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       After the lands were acquired by the State, the original owner divided the land in plots and sold them to the respondents. The respondents approached the State for issue of No Objection Certificate for constructing houses which was denied.
       The High Court allowed the writ petitions of the respondents.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned common judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The Appellant, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, is taking exception to the Judgment dated 07.04.2006 passed by the High Court in the Writ Appeal Nos. 603 to 615 of 1997 and the Judgment dated 27.09.2006 passed in the Review Application Nos. 108 to 120 of 2006 in the Writ Appeal Nos. 603 to 615 of 1997, whereby the High Court had directed the Appellant Government/State to issue No Objection Certificates to the contesting Respondents before us.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to acquire 513.52 acres of land including the land in question, in and around Chennai, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the purpose of Ambattur Neighborhood Housing Scheme. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.10.1975 and published on 12.11.1975, followed by the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued and published on 09.11.1978 and 10.11.1978 respectively. The land in question in the present Appeals, in all 1 acre and 10 cents, owned originally by V. Perumal, forms part of Survey Nos. 271/1 and 271/5 of the village Mogappair. The total area of the land falling under the said Survey No. 271 is 4 acres and 10 cents: the said 1 acre and 10 cents owned by V. Perumal and another 3 acres owned by A. J. Ponnial and A. S. Naidu. The aforementioned three persons had obtained an approved layout plan from the Director of Town Planning on 07.03.1975 with respect to the said Survey No. 271.

3. When the Notifications for acquisition came to be passed, two batches of writ petitions were filed before the High Court; the first batch consisted of W.P. No. 7625 of 1982 filed by P. Velu, son of V. Perumal, while the second batch included W.P. Nos. 7499 and 8328 of 1983 filed by A. S. Naidu. The former batch assailed the Constitutional validity of Sections 11(1) and 23(1) of the Act and contended that the compensation determined as on the date of publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Act was inequitable and arbitrary. The second batch laid an assault to the Notifications published under the Act in their entirety. It should be noted immediately that the statute has subsequently been amended to mandate that an Award has to be passed within two/three years, thereby substantially addressing the grievance of compensation being a pittance owing to it being calculated after several years of the Notification.

4. In the batch matter concerning A. S. Naidu, the parties fought a strenuous battle which resulted in a lengthy discourse and an elaborate order of the High Court. The writ petitioners therein averred that the remarks, which were offered by the requisitioning body, i.e. the Housing Board, upon furnishing to it the Objections of the landowners, had not been communicated to the latter. Such remarks along with the Objections of the landowners formed the basis for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act; ergo, knowledge of those remarks or contentions of the requisitioning body were crucial for the landowners to sustain their objections. This contention of the writ petitioners that Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been infracted because of non-furnishing of the said remarks to the landowners found favour with the High Court. The High Court reasoned that the furnishing of the remarks to the landowners was not just another formality or discretionary procedure to be waived of at the whims of the Authorities; and their non-communication had the effect of “setting at naught the very purpose of the enquiry”. Another contributory factor buttressing the case of the writ petitioners was that the Declaration under Section 6 was not in conformity with the proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act, which prescribes that where land is being acquired for the benefits of a Local Authority, a part of the compensation payable for the acquisition shall have to be borne from the fund controlled or managed by the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 407

Cases Referred (3)