SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3678

High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Ramathal
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No.24093 of 2009 & M.P.No.2 of 2009
Decided on : 18-08-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Krishnakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3 - RM. Muthukumar, GA, R4 - A. Vijayakumar, Advocate.

The judgment establishes the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, including providing notice, opportunity to raise objections, and obtaining prior approval from the Government.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Challenge to Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - 13.09.1995 - Survey No.12/1 and 13/1 of Vellakinar village, Coimbatore Taluk - Act Section List: Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 11, Section 5A - The court discussed the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, including the lack of notice under Section 4(1) and Section 6, absence of opportunity to raise objections under Section 5A, and the requirement of prior approval from the Government under Section 11. The court also considered the ownership claims, acquisition for housing schemes, and the authenticity of land ownership documents. The judgment referenced legal precedents related to acquisition proceedings, rights of subsequent purchasers, and the extinguishment of ownership rights after possession is handed over to the requisitioning body.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13.09.1995, a Declaration made under Section 6, and an Award passed in relation to Survey No.12/1 and 13/1 of Vellakinar village, Coimbatore Taluk. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land and raised objections regarding the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the acquisition proceedings were valid, following the necessary procedures under the Land Acquisition Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no case made out to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.

Issues: Validity of land acquisition proceedings, lack of notice and opportunity to raise objections, authenticity of land ownership documents, and prior approval from the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, and the petitioner's claims regarding lack of notice, opportunity to raise objections, and ownership documents were not substantiated.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13.09.1995 as well as the Declaration made under Section 6 and published in the Government Gazette on 27.09.1996 and the Award passed in Award No.4/98 dated 28.09.1998 relating in Survey No.12/1 and 13/1 of Vellakinar village, Coimbatore Taluk on the file of the 3rd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer, Coimbatore.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.11.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of dispossession if the petitioner had not already been dispossessed.

3. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 01.10.2010 together with supporting documents. The 4th respondent namely, Executive Engineer, TNHB has also filed a counter affidavit dated 29.01.2010.

4. In normal circumstances, the petitioner's attempt to challenge a land acquisition notification of the year 1995 as well as the Award of the year 1998 will never be allowed to be challenged after a period of one decade. But however, the petitioner contended that the lands in question were covered by Tamil Nadu State Boodan Board.

5. The petitioner claimed that the lands in S.Nos.12/1 and 13/1 to the extent of 4.87 acres in Vellakinar Village, Coimbatore Taluk was assigned in her favour under the Vinoba Boomi Dhana Scheme in the year 1964. She had been in possession of the land and cultivating crops ever since the date of assignment. She was also granted Patta Pass Book in the year 1994. She has no other property other than this agricultural land. She has been paying kist and receipts were also issued in favour of the petitioner. The ownership certificate was also given in respect of the said land. When the 4th respondent attempted to interfere in the aforesaid property during July 2009, she made representations. On receipt of the representation, the District Backward and Minority Welfare Officer, Coimbatore forwarded a communication dated 21.08.2009 to the 4th respondent Housing Board to take action on the representation. It is only thereafter, the petitioner came to know that land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the said land by G.O.Ms.No.670 dated 31.07.1995 and subsequently, Declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.06.1996 and an Award was passed on 28.09.1998. The notification issued by the respondents stands in the name of Tamil Nadu Boodan Board.

6. It was contended by the petitioner that since no notice was served under Section 4(1) and Section 6 Declaration of the Act, any proceedings initiated will be invalid. No opportunity was also given to raise objections during under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act. No prior approval from the Government as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act was also obtained.

7. The third respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of building houses for Low and Middle Income Group people under Vellakinar Neighbourhood Scheme on behalf of the Tamilnadu Housing Board and the land comes within the larger extent of 761.41 acres. The lands in S.Nos.12/1, 12/2 and 13/1, an extent of 4.87 acres were covered by Section 4(1) notification and the same was also published in the Government Gazette and widely published in "Makkal Kural" dated 15.09.1995 and in "Pirpagal" dated 16.09.1995. The substance of the notification was also published on 06.10.1995 in the locality. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar on 28.11.1995. Intimation notices was served on the land owners and interested persons as found in the Revenue Records. Chitta notices were also published in the Village and Taluk Offices as prescribed under the Rules. This particular land was registered in the name of Boodhan Board, Chennai as per revenue records and no objection was received from any person. But pursuant to the enquiry notice under Section 5(A





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top