Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 565
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYASIMHA BABU
Indira Nagar Residents’ Benefit Society rep. by its Secretary K. Arunachalam
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Chief Secretary & Others
W.P. No.5415 of 1992
Decided On : 19-07-1995
R.M. Krishna Raju Advocate for the Petitioners; Mr. P. Sathasivam Spl. Govt. Pleader for 1,2,4 to 7 Respondents Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for M/s. Aiyar and Dolia for the 8th Respondent.
The principles of res judicata, estoppel, and promissory estoppel do not apply to prevent the government from acquiring land for a public purpose, where the government has not made any promises not to acquire the land.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - RES JUDICATA - ESTOPPEL - PUBLIC PURPOSE - WEIGHING OF BENEFITS - FACTUAL MATRIX - [SECTION 4(1), 6 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of their lands for industrial expansion. They argued that the notifications were vague, did not serve a public purpose, and violated principles of estoppel and promissory estoppel.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notifications were valid and the acquisition served a public purpose. It found that the petitioners were bound by the earlier judgment upholding the Section 4(1) notification, as their predecessor in title had challenged the same notification unsuccessfully. The court also held that the principles of estoppel and promissory estoppel did not apply in this case, as the government had not made any promises not to acquire the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were valid? 2. Whether the acquisition served a public purpose? 3. Whether the principles of res judicata, estoppel, and promissory estoppel applied in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notifications were valid as they sufficiently specified the public purpose for which the acquisition was being made. It also held that the petitioners were bound by the earlier judgment upholding the Section 4(1) notification, as their predecessor in title had challenged the same notification unsuccessfully. 2. The court held that the acquisition served a public purpose, as the expansion of the industrial area would benefit the economy and create jobs. It also found that the benefits of the acquisition outweighed the loss suffered by the petitioners. 3. The court held that the principles of estoppel and promissory estoppel did not apply in this case, as the government had not made any promises not to acquire the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
This writ petition weeks to quash the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands mentioned at the bottom of the G.O.Ms .No. 1235, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 211. 1988, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, supplement to Part II, Section 2, dated 12. 1988, under G.O.Ms.No.1248, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 30.11.1988, published in Part II, Section 2 of the Gazette dated 112. 1988, under G.O.Ms.No.,173 and 174, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 13. 1989, published in Part II, Section 2 of the Gazette, dated 4. 1989, under G.O.Ms.No.359 Industries (MIJ 2), dated 16. 1989, Published in Part II Section 2, dated 26. 1989 and the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in G.O.Ms.No.469 Industries (MID 2), dated 12. 1991, published in Part II, Section 2, of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 12. 1991, in respect of the same lands.
2. The purpose for which the lands are notified for acquisition as set out in the notification is that for the expansion of Industrial Complex, Sponsored by State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu, Madras.
3. It is admitted that the members of the petitioners’ society Purchased the portions of the survey number, from a firm known as Krishna Traders, which had lay out the sides and had obtained approval from the Panchayat Union, Gummidipoondi, some time in the year 1987. Petitioners claim to have purchased the plots between the years 1987 and 1989.
4. The petitioners’ predecessor in title-Krishna Traders by its partner had challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in W.P.No. 14398 of 1989. At about the same time, an association styled as Indira Nagar Welfare Association, also challenged the same notification in W.P.No. 14584 of 1989. A third writ petition by one K. Kurusamy for quashing the very same notification had also been filed in W.P.No. 12653 of 1989. All those writ petitions came to be dismissed by a learned single Jud ge of this Court on 28. 1991. It had been urged before this Court by the petitioners in those writ petitions that the lay-out of the lands in question had been approved as early as in 1987 and the plans had also been drawn in the year 1988, earlier to the date of 4(1) notification and that at an earlier point of time a proposal to acquire these lands has been disposed. It had also been urged that the notification was vague inasmuch as the purpose set out was not sufficiently specified and therefore did not also constitute a public purpose.
.5. All the afore said contentions were negatived by the learned single Judge of this Court. These petitioners thereafter filed Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.52, 63 and 196 of 1992. The Division Bench in he course of the judgment in those writ appeals observed as follows:-
.“The impugned Notifications only set forth this purpose, namely, expansion of industrial complex sponsored by the forth- respondent. That the business of the fourth respondent is expansion of Industrial Complex cannot be questioned. Its purpose has got to be served also cannot be questioned. That purpose could be served by acquiring further lands also cannot be questioned. That there was a need felt for development of additional area in the Industrial complex at Gummidipoondi i evident from the Note ext racted above, and which was received upon at the 140th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent on 29. 1983. The language in the impugned notifications is sufficiently explicit of the public purpose for which acquisition is being made. It is not possible to set forth therein the entire factual gamut behind the public purpose. The law cannot be stated to require any such factual thesis over the public purpose. It is sufficient if the public purpose is set forth with adequate definiteness so that the persons concerned could object effectively, if they so desired. We do not think that on the facts of the case, any further
