SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. Sahi, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JJ.
Ravisam – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A No. 3887 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, G. Sankaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijay Narayan, Advocate General assisted by E. Manoharan, Spl. Government Pleader, Dr. R. Gouri, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land measuring 3.03 acres for a Housing Scheme - The appellant challenged the acquisition on grounds of lack of notice and procedure involving a deceased person - Court found that the notification process did not serve notice to the appellant, a significant procedural error - The impugned judgment failed to address critical issues regarding the authority and rights of the true owner, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 1-50)

(B) Principle of Notice - The absence of proper notice in acquisition proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice, obliterating the validity of the acquisition - A notification directed at a deceased person lacks legal effect, and any proceedings taken against the dead are a nullity. (Paras 1-66)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership through his deceased father, who was a notified tenure holder in the acquisition proceedings, asserting that he had not received notice of the proceedings which were initiated against his father, who died in 1961. A related legal dispute involved confirming the actual ownership of the land.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition did not consider significant factual disputes, particularly about notice and the identity of the rightful owner, thus requiring remand to the Single Judge for reconsideration.

Issues: The key issues were the validity and effectiveness of the notices served in the acquisition proceedings and the legal standing of the appellant versus the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proper procedure in land acquisition, particularly the requirement of valid notice to affected parties as foundational to justice; thus, the acquisition process was flawed because proceedings were initiated against a deceased person without notifying the heirs.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was restored to the Single Judge for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. land acquisition dispute based on ownership (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. notification process and objections raised (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. interim injunction during acquisition proceedings (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's observation on failure to consider material facts (Para 24 , 49)
5. arguments against acquisition validity (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
6. ruling to restore writ petition for re-evaluation (Para 85)

JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.6.2019 in W.P.No.3640 of 2001.)

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24.6.2019 of the learned Single Judge delivering a common judgment in two writ petitions, one of which W.P.No.3640 of 2001 was filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition proceedings under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for brevity, “the 1894 Act”) with a prayer to quash notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act, whereby land measuring 3.03 Acres of SF.Nos.411/1 and 411/2 in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, has been acquired. This appeal is, therefore, confined only in relation to the said land that concerns the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3640 of 2001.

2. The land has been acquired for a Housing Scheme, namely, Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme Phase 2 in Coimbatore. The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, that was published in the gazette is dated 20.3.1991, and was also subsequently published in the newspapers as well as in the locality, the dates whereof are different. The notification dated 26.5.1992 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published in the official gazette on 28.5.1992. The schedule appended to the said declaration in relation to the plots in question are relevant, keeping in view the nature of the controversy raised by the appellant. In the Section 4 gazette notification, the following description is given with regard to the survey numbers, which includes Plot Nos.411/1 and 411/2:

    “Coimbatore District, Coimbatore North Taluk No.13,

    Vilanchurichi Village

    (The extent given is approximate)

    Government, dry, S.F.No.410-1, belonging to P.S.G.Ganga Naidu and Sons Trust and Krishna Naidu, bounded on the north by S.F.No.404, east by S.F.No.410-2, south by S.F.Nos.411-1 and 411-2 and west by S.F.No.413 -2.79.0 hectares.

    Government, dry, S.F.No.410-2, belonging to Narayanasamy Naidu, Raju Naidu and Balakrishnan, bounded on the north by S.F.No.404, east by S.F.No.409, south by S.F.No.411-2 and west by S.F.No.410-1 -0.81.0 hectares.

    Government, dry, S.F.No.411-1, belonging to same as in S.F.No.410-1, bounded on the north by S.F.No.410-1, east by S.F.No.411-2, south by S.F.No.442 and west by S.F.Nos.412 and 413 -1.68.0 hectares.

    Government, dry, S.F.No.411-2, belonging to same as in S.F.No.410-2, bounded on the north by S.F.Nos.410-1 and 410-2, east by S.F.No.407-1, south by S.F.No.442 and west by S.F.No.411-1 -2.03.5 hectares.

    Government, dry, S.F.No.412, belonging to Narayana Naicker, and Subba Naicker, bounded on the north by S.F.No.413 and 415, east by S.F.Nos.411-1 and 442, south by S.F.Nos.441-1 and 441-2A and west by S.F.No.416 -2.87.0 hectares.

    Total -10.18.5 hectares.

    L.K.TRIPATHY

    Secretary to Government”

3. The same description indicating the names in detail were again repeated in the notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, which is extracted herein under:

    “SCHEDULE

    Coimbatore District, Coimbatore North Taluk No.13,

    Vilanchurichi Village

    Government, dry, S.F.No.410-1, belonging to P.S.G.Ganga Naidu and Sons Trust and Krishna Naidu, bounded on the north by S.F.No.404, east by S.F.No.410-2, south by S.F.Nos.411-1 and 411-2 and west by S.F.No.413 -2.79.0 hectares.

    Government, dry, S.F.No.410-2, belonging to Narayanasamy Naidu, Raju Naidu and Balakrishnan, bounded on the north by S.F.No.404, east by S.F.No.409, south by S.F.No.411-2 and west by S.F.No.

















          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top