Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2226
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
C. Chandrasekaran & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department & Others
W.P. Nos. 41580 41581 .41582 41583 41584 to 41585 of 2002 & 2482 of 2003 & W.P.M.P. Nos. 3091 of 2003 & 23019 of 2004
Decided on: 01-07-2013
For the Petitioners:G. Devadoss for R. Rabhu Manohar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Lakshmi Narayanan, Additional Government Pleader, R3, A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General Assisted by N. Sampath, CMDA.
A successive notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without withdrawing the earlier notification, is not a valid one and would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings based on the successive notification.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - 4(1) NOTIFICATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - CHANGE OF PUBLIC PURPOSE - FRESH 4(1) NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - SECTION 6 DECLARATION - TIME LIMIT - SECTION 48(1) - WITHDRAWAL OF ACQUISITION - SALE OF ACQUIRED LAND - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - DATE OF DETERMINATION - SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER - RIGHT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION - ALIENATION OF LAND - VOID AGAINST STATE - RIGHT TO STEP INTO SHOES OF OWNER - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (1 OF 1894), SECTIONS 4(1), 6, 48(1), 55, 23(1), 11(1), 28.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the acquisition of his land for the implementation of the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex Scheme. The petitioner contended that the impugned 4(1) notification was issued while the earlier 4(1) notification was in force and that the public purpose for which the property was requisitioned had ceased to exist. The respondents contended that the acquisition was necessary for the public purpose of formation of the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Scheme to de-congest the park town area and that the acquired lands were utilized for the public purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned 4(1) notification was issued while the earlier 4(1) notification was in force and that the public purpose for which the property was requisitioned had ceased to exist. The Court also held that the respondents had failed to give valid reasons for overruling the petitioner's objections and that the petitioner was entitled to compensation based on the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the 4(1) notification.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned 4(1) notification was issued while the earlier 4(1) notification was in force? 2. Whether the public purpose for which the property was requisitioned had ceased to exist? 3. Whether the respondents had given valid reasons for overruling the petitioner's objections? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation based on the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the 4(1) notification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned 4(1) notification was issued while the earlier 4(1) notification was in force, relying on the judgment in K. Ponnusamy Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001(3) CTC 233, wherein it was held that the successive notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, without withdrawing the earlier notification is not a valid one and would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings based on the successive notification. 2. The Court held that the public purpose for which the property was requisitioned had ceased to exist, relying on the judgment in AIR 1989 Bombay 156 at 159, wherein it was held that when the public purpose specified in the declaration ceased to exist, there would be no further jurisdiction to continue the proceedings for acquiring for any non-existent purpose. 3. The Court held that the respondents had failed to give valid reasons for overruling the petitioner's objections, relying on the judgment in 1977 Vol (II) CTC 213, Tube Supplies Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held that unless a requisitioning body offers remarks with reason, it would not be possible for land owners to make further representations during Section 5(A) enquiry and that Section 5(A) enquiry held without obtaining a reasoned report from the requisitioning body as to land owners objections is invalid and illegal. 4. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation based on the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the 4(1) notification, relying on the judgment in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 15, Murari v. Union of India, wherein it was held that the market value of the land has to be fixed with reference to the date of publication of notification under S.4(1), irrespective of the dates on which declaration under S.6 or award under S.11 made or possession taken under S.16.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and declared the 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.429 issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner's land situated in Survey No.59/8 of an extent of 0.05 3/4 acre in Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.12.1998 and the subsequent Section 6 declaration issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 02.02.2000 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 02.02.2000 and the subsequent Award dated 05.12.2001 passed in Award No.3 of 2001, by the second respondent as no longer operative as it is illegal and unconstitutional.
1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The writ petitioner stated that he is the owner of lands, an extent of 0.05 3/4 acre in Survey No.59/8 of Koyambedu Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai. He has purchased the said lands under registered sale deed dated 27.04.1989 as per document bearing Nos.1796 of 89, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Annanagar. The Government of Tamilnadu, in and by its G.O.Ms.No.105, Housing Department, dated 21.04.1975 approved the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of an extent of 85.12 acres of land in Koyambedu Village, including the lands descried supra for "Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme" and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21.05.1975. The draft declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was approved in G.O.Ms.No.974, Housing Department, dated 11.05.1978 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 15.05.1978, in respect of an extent of 17.94 acres, excluding an extent of 67.18 acres from land acquisition proceedings. The original owners of the land appeared before the Special Deputy Collector for enquiry under Section 5(a) on 28.06.1999, with reference to notices issued under Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under Section 55(i) of the Land Acquisition Act and presented their objections.
2. The petitioner further stated that originally the entire land was an extent of 1.29 acres as comprised in Survey No.59/3, Block No.6, Koyambedu Village. The erstwhile owner of the entire extent of 1.29 acres in Survey No.59/3 was one N.Manicka Naickar and N.Kuppan. Section 4(1) notification was issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.105, Housing dated 21.04.1975 and Section 6 declaration was also issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.974, Housing, dated 11.05.1978, referred to in Survey No.59/3, owned by the said Manicka Naickar, with an extent of 1.29 acres in Koyambedu Village. The 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21.05.1975 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 15.05.1978 in respect of his land. But the Government, by a Memo, seems to have, at the instance of the third respondent herein, challenged the parties for which the land was sought to be acquired under Section 4(1) notification and have decided to proceed further with the acquisition for the benefit of locating a Truck Terminal for the third respondent, who is a different requisition authority. Hence, the said original owner, V.Manicka Naickar had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1570 of 1983, before this Court, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Court, by its order dated 08.01.1988, was pleased to quash the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove his ownership in the enquiry to be held under Section 5(a) of the said Act. He further stated that after the disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.1570 of 1983, by this Court, the respondents did not take any steps to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in the place of 6 declaration, which was earlier quashed.
3. The writ petitioner further stated that nothing precluded the respondents from issuing such a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, if the lands were really needed for public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) Notification, viz., "Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme". It was under those circumstances that the petitioner purchased the lands in question for valued consideration under a registered sale deed on the bona-fide impression that no further proceedings would be initiated by the respondents and moreover, in the fond hope that the respondents lethargic attitude also resulted in lapsing of Section 4(1) Notification, dated 21.05.1975 in view of the statutory provisions contained under Section 6 of the Land Acqu
