Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V RATNAM
C. Kamatchi Ammal - Appellant
Versus
Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. and Others - Respondent
Case No : W. P. No. 796 of 1984
Decided On : 14 February 1985
LAND ACQUISITION - DECLARATION UNDER S.6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 - VALIDITY - EXPLANATION TO S.6(1) INTRODUCED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT ACT 1980 (ACT 41 OF 1980) - APPLICABILITY - STAY OR INJUNCTION BY COURT - EFFECT ON COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF THREE YEARS - FRESH DECLARATION UNDER S.6(1) - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - NOTIFICATION UNDER S.4(1) - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the validity of the declaration under S.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act) in relation to an extent of 85 cents situate in S.F. No. 219-8A in Kovilpatti belonging to the petitioner and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 4-12-1983. The notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published on 9-3-1977. The acquisition proposed is for the purposes of the construction of a bus depot for Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. The petitioner had obtained orders in I. A. 703 of 1977 in O. S.62 of 1977 Sub-Court, Tuticorin, and I. A. 991 of 1979 in O. S. 231 of 1979, prior to the transfer of the suit to the District Munsif court, Kovilpatti, as O. S. 138 of 1981, and even subsequently, for a total period of 3 years, 9 months and 7 days, further proceedings could not be taken owing to the preventive orders passed by the civil courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the explanation to S.6(1) of the Act, introduced by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1980 (Act 41 of 1980), could be invoked by the respondent, as on 8-2-1978, a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act had already been made and thereafter there was no question of the further proceedings or action to be taken in pursuance of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, having been held up on account of the order of stay or injunction. The court further held that the invalidation of the declaration under S.6(1) of the Act would not render the notification under S.4(1) bad as to necessitate the issue of a fresh notification and that it would be open to the Government to issue a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act, as the Government had the power to do so and the notification under S.4(1) still survived on the strength of which another declaration under S.6(1) can be made.
Issues: 1. Whether the explanation to S.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act) introduced by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1980 (Act 41 of 1980) could be invoked by the respondent, as on 8-2-1978, a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act had already been made and thereafter there was no question of the further proceedings or action to be taken in pursuance of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, having been held up on account of the order of stay or injunction. 2. Whether the invalidation of the declaration under S.6(1) of the Act would render the notification under S.4(1) bad as to necessitate the issue of a fresh notification and that it would be open to the Government to issue a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act, as the Government had the power to do so and the notification under S.4(1) still survived on the strength of which another declaration under S.6(1) can be made.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The explanation to S.6(1) of the Act, introduced by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1980 (Act 41 of 1980), can be invoked by the respondent, as on 8-2-1978, a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act had already been made and thereafter there was no question of the further proceedings or action to be taken in pursuance of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, having been held up on account of the order of stay or injunction. 2. The invalidation of the declaration under S.6(1) of the Act would not render the notification under S.4(1) bad as to necessitate the issue of a fresh notification and that it would be open to the Government to issue a declaration under S.6(1) of the Act, as the Government had the power to do so and the notification under S.4(1) still survived on the strength of which another declaration under S.6(1) can be made.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the declaration under S.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to an extent of 85 cents situate in S.F. No. 219-8A in Kovilpatti belonging to the petitioner and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 4-12-1983. The notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published on 9-3-1972. The acquisition proposed is for the purposes of the construction of a bus depot for Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd., the first respondent herein. For the purpose of operating buses, the first respondent took on lease the property in question from the petitioner on 1-10-1974 on a rent of Rs. 750 per month, which was later raised to Rs. 1500 with effect from 1-4-1976. Since the property in question was found most suitable for housing the branch depot and workshop of the first respondent, proposals were initiated for the acquisition of the same and after approval of the proposals, the notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 9-3-1977. Since a mistake had crept into the said notification, by an order of the Government dated 18-7-1977, an amendment to the notification under S.4(1) of the Act was also published on 3-8-1977. Though the first respondent was paying the petitioner the increased rent of Rs. 1500 per month from 1-4-1976, the petitioner was insisting that a lease agreement should be entered into by the first respondent with her for a period of ten years, as, according to her, she had spent a large sums of money in the construction of additional buildings etc. and she would be put to loss in the event of the first respondent vacating the premises earlier. Pursuant to the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, the enquiry under S.5-A was fixed for 5-7-1977 and finally it was conducted on 1-9-1977, during the course of which the petitioner raised certain objections, which were, however, overruled and after approving the draft declaration, the declaration under S.6(1) of the Act was published on 8-2-1978 in the Tamil Nadu Gazette.
2. It is necessary at this stage to refer to certain proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the civil Court with reference to the property proposed to be acquired. O. S. 62 of 1977 was instituted by the petitioner before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, praying for a decree to direct the first respondent to execute a registered lease deed for a period of ten years from 1-4-1976. In I. A. 703 of 1977 she prayed for an interim injunction restraining the further proceedings under the Act till the disposal of the suit. On 3-4-1979, a temporary injunction was granted to enure till the disposal of the suit and though an appeal in C. M. A. 344 of 1978 was filed by the first respondent before this court, it was finally dismissed on 8-9-1978, with a direction that the suit should be taken up for trial and disposed of and in accordance with this, the suit was decreed on 25-4-1979, directing the first respondent to execute a lease for ten years from 1-4-1976 and against this decree, the first respondent preferred A. S. 944 of 1979 and though stay of operation of the decree was initially granted in C. M. P. 9996 of 1979, the same was vacated and as a consequence thereof, the first respondent executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years from 1-4-1976.
3. Another suit in O. S. 239 of 1979, Sub-Court, Tuticorin was also instituted by the petitioner praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the further proceedings under the Act. On 11-1-1980, the petitioner obtained a temporary injunction restraining further proceedings under the Act and though an appeal was filed against that order in C. M. A. 36 of 1980 before the District Court, that appeal was dismissed on 27-6-1981, with a direction that the trial of the suit should be taken up and proceeded with. O. S. 239 of 1979, Sub-Court, Tuticorin was thereafter transfer
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
