Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S.KARNAN, J.
Dr.G.Sundhar Krishnan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.6406 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014
Decided On : 02/12/2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.Om Prakash For Mr.J.Nithayandan
For Respondents: Mr.M.S.Ramesh Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4, Mr.K.Moorthy for R5
The main legal point established is the validity of the acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act and the importance of the public project in determining the outcome of the case.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Property Ownership - Land Acquisition Act - [PROPERTY OWNERSHIP] - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1), Section 6(1), Section 9(3), Section 10, Section 17(2)] - The court discussed the acquisition of the property under the Land Acquisition Act, the validity of the notifications issued, and the compliance with statutory provisions. It highlighted the petitioner's claim of being a bonafide purchaser and the alleged non-compliance with notice and possession requirements. The court also considered the petitioner's challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the respondent's defense based on legal opinion and loan agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a property for hospital construction, unaware of its acquisition for MRTS Project. The petitioner challenged the acquisition, claiming to be a bonafide purchaser. The court analyzed the acquisition process, the petitioner's possession and title, and the urgency provisions invoked by the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property had been acquired for the MRTS Project, and the acquisition process had been followed scrupulously. It dismissed the writ petition, stating that the project was of paramount importance for the general public.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the acquisition proceedings, compliance with statutory provisions, the petitioner's claim as a bonafide purchaser, and the urgency provisions invoked by the government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition process had been followed scrupulously, and the project was of paramount importance for the general public, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The petitioner has submitted that his property situated at Plot No.70, in Layout Plan PPD/LO No.69/86, dated 17.09.1986, at Door No.4, 21st Street, Balaji Nagar Extension, Madipakkam, Chennai measuring an extent of 1 ground 1973 sq.ft. (4373 sq.ft) comprised in New Survey No.26/13A2 and Old Survey No.25/9A2, corresponding to Old Survey No.26/13C of Madipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District (presently Sholinganallur Taluk) is absolutely owned by him and his wife Dr.Mrs.Kanthamani. They jointly purchased the said property in and by a Deed of Sale dated 15.07.2011 registered as Document No.3904 of 2011, on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Velachery. The said property was conveyed in their favour by the erstwhile owner of the property Mr.P.Thiyagarajan, who had in turn purchased the same by way of Sale Deed dated 12.02.1988 registered as Document No.466 of 1988, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur from M/s.Balaji Nagar Government Employees Welfare and Housing Society. The said property was jointly purchased by him and his wife for a valid consideration of Rs.2.10 crores. They had infact availed a loan amount of Rs.2,00,95,000/- from the fifth respondent herein under a sanction letter dated 30.06.2011. The fifth respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,96,91,486/- to their vendor, the said Mr.P.Thiyagarajan as part of the sale consideration by way of cheques bearing Nos.000681 to 000684, dated 30.06.211, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd.
2. The petitioner has further submitted that his vendor, the above said Mr.P.Thiyagarajan was the absolute owner of the said property ever since from the date of his purchase in the year 1988 and had produced a patta in his name for the said property in Patta No.7585 issued by the then Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram on 06.10.2003. The said property was purchased by him along with his wife as the bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration after the fifth respondent herein had obtained due diligence in respect of the title to the same by legal opinion, through their Advocates. Having been satisfied with the title, proclaimed by the Advocates of the fifth respondent herein, who had agreed to fund the substantial amount based on the credentials of petitioner and his wife, practicing Doctors, they had ventured to purchase the property. The fifth respondent confirmed the title to the property without any encumbrance over the same and they had acted in good faith and bonafide in purchasing the same. He is an ENT Doctor by profession and his wife Dr.(Mrs)Kanthamani is an Eye Doctor by profession. They are jointly running a hospital under the name and style of Krishna eye and ENT Hospitals at No.39, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. They had purchased the said property with a fond hope of constructing a hospital with a residential unit for them to carry on their professional service. In terms of their wish and after purchasing the property, they had proposed to demolish the then existing structure and to construct a building to suit their needs for a hospital cum residence. Accordingly, they had obtained demolition permission from the Chennai Corporation by permit dated 04.09.2012. Prior to that, they had also obtained transfer of electricity and other service connection for the property changed to their names.
3. The petitioner has further submitted that on the purchase of the said property, he had also applied for mutation of revenue records for change of patta in the joint names of himself and his wife. After necessary survey of the property, mutation was done by the fourth respondent herein and they were given a patta for the said property purchased by them in patta No.11538. In terms of the patta, the land measuring 4737 sq.ft. is situated in Survey No.25/9A2 and 26/13A2 and they had also obtained copy of the patta on 30.07.2012 along with chitta extracts. After obtaining demolition permit for the building, they had ventured upon to proceed with the demolition. At this
