Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 1015
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Murugesa Naicker and two others
Versus
The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (IV), Maraimalai Nagar Scheme, Kattankolathur, Chingleput District and another
W.P. Nos.7388, 8216, 9968, 13044, 13077, 13474, 14105, 14106 of 1986, 2917, 3406, 4196 and 11697 of 1987 and W.M.P. Nos. 15547, 15549, 15550 to 15553 of 1997
Decided On : 30-07-1998
Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for Mr. M.S. Govindarajan and Mr. V. Rajavelu, Special Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition f or Respondents.
Headnote:
Writ petitions challenging acquisition of lands for development of a new satellite town near Madras known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (now known as Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) were dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay. The court held that the petitioners failed to approach the court at the appropriate time and that their objections to the acquisition proceedings were not raised within the prescribed time limit. The court also noted that the petitioners had not explained the delay in filing the writ petitions and that the acquisition proceedings had been completed and possession of the lands had been taken by the requisitioning department.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are the owners of the lands acquired for the development of a new satellite town near Madras known as Maraimalai Nagar, filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners alleged that there was no local publication of the gist of the 4(1) Notification as per the Rules, no proper enquiry under Section 5-A was held, and there was enormous delay in passing the award. The petitioners also contended that the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority was not a necessary party in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had failed to approach the court at the appropriate time and that their objections to the acquisition proceedings were not raised within the prescribed time limit. The court also noted that the petitioners had not explained the delay in filing the writ petitions and that the acquisition proceedings had been completed and possession of the lands had been taken by the requisitioning department.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had approached the court at the appropriate time? 2. Whether the petitioners' objections to the acquisition proceedings were raised within the prescribed time limit? 3. Whether the petitioners had explained the delay in filing the writ petitions? 4. Whether the acquisition proceedings had been completed and possession of the lands had been taken by the requisitioning department?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were guilty of laches and delay in approaching the court. The court also held that the petitioners had not raised their objections to the acquisition proceedings within the prescribed time limit. The court further held that the petitioners had not explained the delay in filing the writ petitions and that the acquisition proceedings had been completed and possession of the lands had been taken by the requisitioning department.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions on the grounds of laches and delay.
1. In all the above writ petitions the challenge is only with regard to acquisition of lands for development of a new satellite town near Madras known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (now known as Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority). Since similar points have been taken in all the writ petitions, the same may be disposed of by the following common order:-
2. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioners, for the convenience and for the present I shall refer the facts leading to the filing of the first writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 7388 of 1986. According to the petitioner, they are the owners of the land measuring a total extent of 17 acres 70 cents comprised in S. No. 238/17A measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S. No. 238/17B measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S. No. 238/17C measuring 5 acres 90 cents respectively in No. 83, Sengundram Village, Chingleput. They made improvements in the lands for the purposes of cultivation. They reclaimed the lands at a cost of more than Rs. 1,50,000. In G.O.Ms. No. 1198 Housing and Urban Development dated 7. 1979, the second respondent issued a Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain lands including the aforesaid land of the petitioners for the development of a new satellite town known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. The first respondent has been authorised to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. It is stated that the particulars regarding ownership and extent furnished in the 4 (1) Notification are incorrect. They did not publish the substance of the Section 4 (1) Notification either in the locality or in the daily newspapers. However, the first respondent called upon the petitioners to state their objections if any for the said proposal. They submitted their objections and requested the respondents to drop their lands from acquisition. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, they did not hear anything in the matter and therefore they were under the impression that the respondents have deleted their lands from acquisition. But after 7 years, the petitioners were shocked to receive a notice under Section 9 (3) (10) of the Land Acquisition Act informing that an Award Enquiry will be held on 30.7.1986. It is stated that no notice for an enquiry under section 5-A of the said Act was ever served on the petitioners. The failure to comply with the said mandatory provisions vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, they have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.
3. On behalf of the respondents, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying various averments made by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Government in their G.O.Ms. No. 1198, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7. 1979 have approved the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same has been published at pages 11 to 15 in supplement to Part-II-Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 18. 1979 for acqu isition of 172.54 acres of land in Sengundram village for a public purpose to wit for the development of a new satellite town near Madras known as ‘Maraimalai Nagar’ by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. The land belonging to the petitioners was also included in the said notification. Enquiry under Section 5A was conducted on 12. 79 and 80. First petitioner attended the enquiry on 1. 80 and filed objection on his behalf and on behalf of the third petitioner, which were duly communicate d to the requisitioning body viz., the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for their remarks. The remarks of the requisitioning body were duly communicated to the landowners. The Government after overruling the objections have approved the draft declaration under Section 6 in their order G.O.Ms. No. 757, Housing and Urban De
