Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JJ.
T.N. Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 2572 & 2885 of 2011
Decided On : 27-1-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant: Mr. K. Doraisami and Mr. Kandan Doraisami.
For Respondent: Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, AGP, Mr. K. Raja Srinivas and Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia.
Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the public purpose of the land acquisition were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compliance with Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act - [Sections 4(1), 5A, 6, 9(3), 10] - The court held that the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were complied with, and the technical objections regarding the publication in local dailies were unfounded. The land in question was acquired for public purpose, and the court found no merits in the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The land in question was sought to be acquired for the purpose of organizing a Truck Terminal and Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The Writ Petition and Writ Appeal were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and subsequent orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with, and the technical objections raised by the appellants were unfounded. It also held that the Writ Petition filed after the passing of the Award was not maintainable.
Issues: Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, maintainability of the Writ Petition after the passing of the Award, and the purpose of the land acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with, and the Writ Petition filed after the passing of the Award was not maintainable. It also emphasized the public purpose of the land acquisition.
Final Decision: Both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were dismissed by the court.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition is one and the same, they are taken up for common hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in the Writ Petition are none other than the legal heirs of the appellant in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the appellants.
3. The present Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition reveal a very sorry state of affair and make it evident that the litigants are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea for the law of limitation/delay and laches.
4. For better assessment of the entire gamut, we feel it appropriate to narrate the facts in short.
5. Pursuant to the Notification dated 16.10.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, Act), followed by 5-A enquiry and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, an extent of 4 acres of land comprised in S. Nos. 52, 53/1-B, 53/1-C, 56/1, 56/2, 57/1, 57/2, 62/1, 62/2, 63 and 64 in Nerkundram Village, was sought to be acquired for the purpose of organising Truck Terminal and Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 20286 of 1993 was filed by one T.N. Natarajan, one of the land owners / appellant in W.A. No. 2572 of 2001. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, an Award was passed in Award No. 3 of 1994 dated 21.10.1994 by the Special Deputy Collector, LA – III, fixing the total compensation as Rs. 20,03,722/-. Subsequently, the prayer in the Writ Petition was amended challenging the Award along with the proceedings. The learned single Judge, by order dated 19.10.2001, dismissed the Writ Petition as devoid of merits.
6. In this backdrop, the land owner filed the present Writ Appeal No. 2572 of 2001 contending that the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were not complied with and that the publication of the same in the newspapers will not satisfy the requirement of the statutory provisions. The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 20.02.2002, allowed the appeal holding that one of the newspaper publication should be in English and the other in vernacular language, however, with a liberty to the Government to re-initiate the land acquisition proceedings by following the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the authorities approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 23.09.2010, held that the issue raised by the writ petitioner has not been addressed by the High Court properly. Observing so, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, W.A. No. 2572 of 2001 is posted before this Court.
7. It is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings, the sole appellant died and hence, the present appeal is prosecuted by his legal heirs.
8. The legal heirs of T.N. Natarajan, since deceased, appellant in W.A. No. 2572 of 2001, filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (S.1) Department, and the communication of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) fourth respondent in Lr. No. RTI 28/2010 dated 22.12.2010 insofar as their lands in S. Nos. 62/1, 63, 57, 64, 52 and 53/1C situated in Nerkundram Village are concerned and to forbear the respondents from in any manner depriving them of the lands without due process of law including payment of compensation at prevailing market rate.
9. The main contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the newspapers Namadhu M.G.R. Dhina Thoodhu and Vetri Maalai in which publication with regard to the acquisition of the lands in question, was effected, are not at all in circulatio
