IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Seshasayee, J.
V. Thangavelu and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Tahsildar Maduravoyal Taluk Alapakkam Chennai and ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.12200, 12213, 12220, 12225, 12230 & 12233 & 19933 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.14941, 14966, 14976, 14984, 14989 & 24608 of 2020
Decided On : 31-03-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 261 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6 and 4(1) - Acquisition of property - Land owners have developed the property into a layout and sold the plots to various persons including the petitioners - Property in relation to which, the petitioners seeks patta are comprised in S.Nos.284/1A, 373/2A, 373/2B, 374/2 and 375 of Nerkundram Village - They were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) sometime in 1975 and an award too came to be passed facts are not disputed. Be that as it may, predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, land owners of these properties at that relevant time when acquisition was notified, challenged declaration issued under sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in W.P.Nos. ground that the enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 5A of Act had not taken place - These petitions came to be allowed by this Court It appears that despite this order, no subsequent enquiry under Sec. 5A was ever held - Background, land owners had approached this Court to quash very notification under Section 4(1) in W.P.No. and came to be allowed by Court – Held, learned counsel for petitioners would submit even though the copies of Orders passed by this Court - Tamil Nadu Housing Board is only beneficiary of the intended acquisition and not the acquisition authority, and only when acquisition is successful and complete, the TNHB which is a requisition body will have right to have its sty. And, today, at this distant date, it is not given to any of authorities to impugn validity of Order in W.P.No. collaterally in proceedings - Circumstances are such that the Tahsildar is now required to abide by Orders passed by this Court - Constitution envisages doctrine of full faith and credit, and this cannot be breached. The Tahsildar is now required to fix a date for enquiry within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ petitions are disposed of
ORDER :
The petitioners involved in these batch of petitions seek patta for the plots that they have purchased, from the revenue authorities.
2. The short facts are that the property in relation to which, the petitioners seeks patta are comprised in S.Nos.284/1A, 373/2A, 373/2B, 374/2 and 375 of Nerkundram Village. They were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) sometime in 1975 and an award too came to be passed on 10.01.1986. These facts are not disputed. Be that as it may, the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, the land owners of these properties at that relevant time when the acquisition was notified, challenged the declaration issued under sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in W.P.Nos.8370 & 8371 of 1986, on the ground that the enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 5A of the Act had not taken place. These petitions came to be allowed by this Court on 21.08.1988. It appears that despite this order, no subsequent enquiry under Sec. 5A was ever held. In this background, the land owners had approached this Court to quash the very notification under Section 4(1) in W.P.No.18379 of 1991, and this came to be allowed by this Court on 01.07.1999. This has since become final. Subsequently, the land owners have developed the property into a layout and sold the plots to various persons including the petitioners. The petitioners have purchased the properties as per the details provided in the tabular column :
| W.P. No. | Petitioner | Plot No. & Extent | Survey No. | Details of Purchase/Ownership |
| 12200/2020 | 1. V.Thangavelu
2.N.Lakshmi
3.M.Mallika 4.M.Revathy 5.M.Bhavani 6.M.Sundaramurthy (Plot purchased by Manickavelu who died intestate on 03.02.2018 and succeeded by his legal heirs, the petitioners 3 to 6 herein.
7. P.Elumalai 8. P.Rajasekaran
9. M.Ramamurthy 10. R.Angammal
11. N.Deventhiran 12. D.Shanthi
13. V.Grace Bella Baby
14.P.Athiappan
15. K.Sheik Abdullah
16. M.Anjalai 17. M.Thenmozhi 18.M.Kanimozhi (Plot purchased by D.Mani, who died intestate on 28.11.2012 and succeeded by his legal heirs, the petitioners 16 to 18 herein.
19.S.Gopi
20.R.Devaki 21.R.Karthickeyan 22.R.Sakthivel 23.R.Vanichitra (Plot purchased by M.R.Rose, who died intestate on 24.07.2019 and succeeded by his legal heirs, the petitioners 20 to 23 herein. | 121 (part) (Eastern portion) 600 sq.ft.
55 (part) (Western portion) 600 sq..ft.
1, 1200 sq.ft.
186, 3475 sq.ft.
95 (part) (Western portion) 600 sq.ft.
176(part) (Southern portion) 600 sq.ft.
183, 2925 sq.ft.
29 (part) (Western portion) 600 sq.ft.
82, 1200 sq.ft.
80 (part) (Western portion) 1120 sq.ft.
142 (part) (Northern portion) 1190 sq.ft.,
134 (part) (Western portion) 1679 sq.ft | 375
375
373/2A
375
375
375
375
375
373/2A
373/2B
373/2B | Sale Deed dated 11.03.1992 Doc.No.864/1992
Sale Deed dated 06.11.2015 Doc.No.7612/2015
Sale Deed dated 25.03.1987 Doc.No.960/1987
Settlement Deed dated 09.03.2011 Doc.No.1395/2011
Sale Deed dated 11.02.1990 Doc.No.621/1990
Sale Deed dated 10.05.1995 Doc.No.1692/1995
Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 Doc.No.5205/1995
Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 Doc.No.5205/1995
Sale Deed dated 16.11.2001 Doc.No.5170/2001 Sale Deed dated 12.04.1991 Doc.No.1229/1991
Sale Deed dated 26.05.2016 Doc.No.350/2016
Sale Deed dated 20.12.2004 Doc.No.7134/2004 |
| 12213/2020 | 1.E.M.Rangaiah
2.M.Murali
3.V.Aranganathan
| |||
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.