SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Vasanthi Veerasekaran – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8626 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8625, 8627 and 8630 of 2009
Decided on : 01-07-2019
(b) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial propriety - Land acquired for central Government Railway project - State not having any policy for providing alternative housing site nor such obligation flowing from Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - High Court directing State to provide alternate housing sites to affected land owners as a special category of displaced persons - Not permissible. (Para 9)
(1996) 1 SCC 731; (2010) 2 SCC 786; (2012) 12 SCC 133 - Relied upon
(1993) 3 SCC 634; (1986) 4 SCC 251; (1988) 4 SCC 534; AIR 1991 SC 90 - Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Respondents’ lands were forcibly taken even before initiation of land acquisition proceedings for “Mass Rapid Transport System” (for short “MRTS”) Railway Project.
The High Court directed the State to provide alternative housing site to the dispossessed land owners.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. These appeals emanate from the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28th April, 2006 disposing of the concerned writ petitions instituted by the private respondent(s) in the respective appeals. Although four separate writ petitions were filed, one common factum noticed from the factual narration in the impugned judgment is that the property owned and possessed by the private respondents in the concerned appeals came to be acquired for the purpose of implementing the “Mass Rapid Transport System” (for short “MRTS”) Railway Project, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”). After following due process, the acquisition proceedings culminated with the passing of the award and taking over of possession of the concerned property. After possession was taken, the subject property was made over to the appropriate authority for implementation of the Railway Project.
2. The private respondent(s) in the respective appeals had, however, unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions in the High Court. While rejecting the challenge, the High Court vide order dated 12th December, 2003 observed that the appropriate authority of the State Government ought to consider the representation made by the private respondents in the concerned appeals for allotment of a housing site by way of rehabilitation as a special category of displaced persons, in view of the dictum presumably in Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., (1993) 3 SCC 634 (incorrectly mentioned as Lakhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993 AIR SCW 2938 which is a decision in a criminal matter). The operative part of the said order reads thus:
“5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 SC 2025, AIR 1988 SC 2181, AIR 1991 SC 90 and AIR SCW 1993 @ 2923, persuasively contended that there could be direction to the State Government to allot lands from any one of the Housing schemes in the city. There is forece and substance in this contention.
6. In the circumstances, the present applications taken out by the petitioners do deserve further consideration and the petitioners request for housing site deserves to be considered by the State by way of rehabilitation.
7. Hence, it is made clear that in the event of the petitioners applying to the State Government and Tamil Nadu Housing Board for allotment of house sites in any one of the housing projects promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, their request shall be considered for allotment of lands, as a special category of displaced persons by the acquisition of lands for the railways as has been held by the Supreme Court in Lakhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1993 AIR SCW 2938.
8. With the above observations, the above miscellaneous petitions are ordered accordingly.”
3. In furtherance of the direction given by the High Court, the private respondent(s) pursued representation before the State Government. Eventually, the State Government declined to grant any relief to the private respondent(s) and communicated its decision to them vide letter dated 26th May, 2005. It may be apposite to reproduce one such communication, issued to the private respondent in Civil Appeal No.8625 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No.8630 of 2009. The same reads thus:
“GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Housing and Urban
Development Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
From
Thiru Lal Rawana Sailo,
I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government
Letter
No.41629/UD3(2)/200313
Dated: 26.05.2005
To
Thiru P. Arivudainambi,
MIG No.3, Santhome High
Road,
Foreshre Estate,
TNH Board,
Chennai-600028.
Tmt. S. Sulochana,
19, Leith Castle Street,
Sea View Apartments,
Santhome,
Chennai-600028
Sir/Madam,
Sub: Land Acquisition-Mass Rapid Transit System-Lands acquired for Mass Rapid Transmit Syste, S.No.300/12 measuring 5445 sq.ft. belonging to Tmt. S. SulochnaS.No.300/13 measuring 5554 sq.ft. belonging to Thiru P. Ari
Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi
New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran (dead) by Lrs.
V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.