Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
C. Balachandran (deceased) & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai & Another – Respondent
W.A. Nos.1305 & 1153 to 1155 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 31-03-2015
For the Appellants:G. Saravanan, V. Ayyadurai, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R. Rajeswaran, Spl. G.P.
The principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings and the delay in filing the Writ Petitions should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the Petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION - SECTION 6 DECLARATION - URGENCY CLAUSE - DELAY AND LACHES - RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITIONS - DISMISSAL - VALIDITY - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (CENTRAL ACT 1 OF 1894), SECTIONS 4(1), 5-A, 6, 9(1), 9(2), 9(3), 11, 11-A, 17, 17(1), 17(3-A), 17(4), 48-B - RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013), SECTION 24(2) - TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT TO LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, SECTION 48-B.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, as petitioners before the Writ Court, prayed for issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in G.O.Ms.No.137, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.1982, No.II(2)/REV/317(c)82, pertaining to Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration as made in G.O.Ms.No.137, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.1982, No.II(2)/REV/317(d)/82, as published in Part IISection 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated 28.01.1982 and to quash the same and to consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject lands. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which, the writ petitioners are on appeals before this Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petitions are hit by the principle of res judicata and the possession of the lands has already been taken by the respondents on 11.06.1992 and the lands were also subsequently handed over to the Public Works Department on 01.09.1997 for construction of the Government Office complex and thereafter, the office building for Agriculture Department has also been constructed in a portion of the acquired lands and the office of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department, Kattumannarkoil, is also functioning now. The Court further held that the argument of the writ petitioners that non-payment of 80% of compensation for the acquired lands by the Collector, will vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings, is held to be misconceived, since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act on 23.01.1982, but sub-section (3-A) of Section 17 of the Act came to be inserted by Act 68 of 1984 and therefore, the said provision cannot be made applicable to the case of the writ petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions are hit by the principle of res judicata? 2. Whether the possession of the lands has already been taken by the respondents? 3. Whether the argument of the writ petitioners that non-payment of 80% of compensation for the acquired lands by the Collector, will vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings, is held to be misconceived?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the writ petitions are hit by the principle of res judicata as the earlier Writ Petitions on the correctness of the reasoning for invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act were dismissed by this Court, by order dated 02.08.1991, holding that the invocation of the urgency clause was proper. 2. The Court held that the possession of the lands has already been taken by the respondents on 11.06.1992 and the lands were also subsequently handed over to the Public Works Department on 01.09.1997 for construction of the Government Office complex and thereafter, the office building for Agriculture Department has also been constructed in a portion of the acquired lands and the office of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department, Kattumannarkoil, is also functioning now. 3. The Court held that the argument of the writ petitioners that non-payment of 80% of compensation for the acquired lands by the Collector, will vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings, is held to be misconceived, since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act on 23.01.1982, but sub-section (3-A) of Section 17 of the Act came to be inserted by Act 68 of 1984 and therefore, the said provision cannot be made applicable to the case of the writ petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Appeals and confirmed the impugned order of the learned single Judge.
G. Chockalingam, J.
1. Heard Mr.G.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1305 of 2014, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1153 to 1155 of 2014 and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in all the Writ Appeals.
2. The appellants, as petitioners before the Writ Court, prayed for issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in G.O.Ms.No.137, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.1982, No.II(2)/REV/317(c)82, pertaining to Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration as made in G.O.Ms.No.137, Revenue Department, dated 23.01.1982, No.II(2)/REV/317(d)/82, as published in Part IISection 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated 28.01.1982 and to quash the same and to consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject lands. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which, the writ petitioners are on appeals before this Court.
3. The case of the appellants/petitioners before the Writ Court is as follows:
(a) The subject matter lands belong to the writ petitioners, either by way of ownership or by inheritance as legal heirs and they had put up houses in a portion of their respective lands and residing therein and have been in exclusive possession and continuous enjoyment ever since then and that being the fact, the respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), stating that the lands are required for construction of a Taluk Office complex with residential quarters for the officers of Kattumannarkoil Taluk.
(b) Earlier, W.P.Nos.4264 to 4266, 4606 and 4609 of 1983 came to be filed questioning the correctness of the reasoning for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and this Court, by order dated 02.08.1991, dismissed those Writ Petitions, holding that invocation of the urgency clause was proper. Thereafter, it is stated that no steps were taken to locate the said Taluk Office as specified in the acquisition proceedings and in the meanwhile, the appellants/writ petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties continuously. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1982 and even after the dismissal of the said Writ Petitions in 1991, the respondents, though proceeded to acquire the lands of the writ petitioners invoking the urgency clause, had not made use of the lands for the specified purpose and therefore, the purpose of urgency no longer survives. Hence, the appellants/writ petitioners made representations to the respondents, requesting them to exclude their lands from the acquisition proceedings, but the respondents replied stating that they had already taken possession of the lands in question on 11.06.1992 and therefore, the writ petitioners were directed to receive the compensation from the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is neither the Land Acquisition Officer, nor has got any jurisdiction to deal with the acquisition proceedings.
(c) Further, the Taluk Office had been located in some other area, which shows that the purpose of invoking the urgency clause for construction of Taluk Office, does not exist and that the purpose of construction of Taluk Office also has been fulfilled. In view of the same, when the writ petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties in question, the respondents shall not use the lands for any other purpose by disturbing their continuous possession.
(d) When a similar challenge was made by one Rt.Rev.P.Arockiasamy, Bishop of Tanjavur Bishop House, representing the Immaculate Conception Church, Udayargudi, Kattumannarkoil, South Arcot District, in W.P.No.17975 of 1992 to quash the acquisition proceedings, this Court, by order dated 09.02.2000, allowed the said Writ Petition, ho
