Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 360
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
B.M. Purnachandran
Versus
The Secretary to Government (Special Initiatives), Planning & Another
W.P.No.20769 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2010
Decided on : 24-01-2011
For the Petitioner:A. Thiagarajan, S.C. for S. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3 - B. Vijay, G.A., R2 - A. Vijayakumar, R4 - P.S. Raman, Advocate General Assisted by V. Ramajagadeesan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the urgency provision under Sec.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be justified if the Government forms an opinion based on material before invoking the provision, and that the Government cannot take possession of the acquired land without offering compensation.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Chennai Metro Rail Project - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec.4(1), Sec.17(4) - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the acquisition of land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project, ruling that the urgency provision under Sec.17 was justified and the Government had formed an opinion based on material before invoking the provision. The court also clarified that the Government cannot take possession of the acquired land without offering compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the notification for the acquisition of land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project, claiming it was malafide and abuse of process of law. The petitioner also sought just compensation at market rate before the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the urgency provision under Sec.17 was justified and the Government had formed an opinion based on material before invoking the provision. The court also clarified that the Government cannot take possession of the acquired land without offering compensation.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the notification for land acquisition, the invocation of urgency provision under Sec.17, and the petitioner's claim for just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the urgency provision under Sec.17 was justified and the Government had formed an opinion based on material before invoking the provision. The court also clarified that the Government cannot take possession of the acquired land without offering compensation.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the acquisition of land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project was dismissed by the court.
1. The petitioner seeks writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.108 Planning, development and special initiatives (SI) on 28.07.2010 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government gazette Extraordinary dated 28.07.2010 being malafide and abuse of process of law and thus null and void.
2. The petitioner also prays that the respondents be directed to first assess the value of the schedule mentioned property and pay just compensation at market rate to the petitioner before proceeding with the acquisition proceedings.
3. However, later part of the prayer made in the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.
4 The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the land in dispute is being acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of implementation of Chennai Metro Rail Project. To achieve this object notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 28.07.2010 under G.O.Ms.No.108 Planning, development and special initiatives (Sl) on 28.07.2010 vide which the enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with, by invoking the provision of Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. The petitioner being a owner of the land under the acquisition is aggrieved by this acquisition of land and challenge it being malafide and abuse of process of law and thus null and void.
6. As already observed, the alternative relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition was given up by the petitioner.
7. The case of the petitioner is that on the earlier occasion, i.e. during the year 1975 also, the subject land was sought to be acquired for setting up Housing Scheme which was challenged by the petitioner along with his brother. The writ petition was allowed on 22.04.1991, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed C.A.No.1867 of 1992 on 17.01.1996, but exempted the lands now under acquisition, viz., 1.50 acres, keeping in view of the object for which the land was sought to be acquired, and the request of the petitioner for using it for residential purpose.
8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1867 of 1992, the Tamil Nadu Government withdrew the acquisition proceedings vide Government Gazette Extraordinary notification No.339 dated 06.07.1996.
9. The case of the petitioner further is that on 23.12.2008 the second respondent issued a notice in Na.Ka.No.14/2008/N.I.A. CMRT stating therein that the second respondent was anticipating to acquire schedule mentioned properties for Chennai Metro Rail Scheme. The petitioner vide notice referred to above, was called for counseling on 26.12.2008 for fixing the compensation of the land.
10. The case of the petitioner is that he attended the counseling but there was no discussion was held to fix the compensation as the second respondent was not sure that the land of the petitioner would be acquired. The petitioner requested for personal hearing.
11. The case of the petitioner further is that prior to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17867 of 2010 with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the third respondent, to hand over the land measuring to an extent of 1.50 acres to the petitioner with separate boundaries in survey No.167/9 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1867 of 1992 and it is said writ was pending.
12. It is also pleaded in the affidavit that in response to the counter filed in his previous W.P.No.17867 of 2010, he came to know about the acquisition proceedings and was able to collect the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary notification dated 28.07.2010, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
13. The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the grounds:-
(i) That the procedure laid down under the Act was not followed be
