Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai - Petitioner
Versus
Jayanthi & Another - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3610 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 20184 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Order 21 Rule 32 - Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1981 - Section 138 - Limitation Act - Section 135 - Constitution of india,1950 - Article 226 ,135 - Land Acquisition Act – Section 4(1) - Notification - Acquisition of land – Compensation - land registered in under patta - Both respondents herein have purchased said properties after 4(1) notification - As per award, they were ordered to pay compensation on production of original documents Aggrieved by said award respondents filed petition in before learned judgment and decree said Court fixed land value at per cent against - Held, Court by way of Writ petition by challenging award and acquisition proceedings initiated by Special Deputy Collector (Land acquisition) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras and failed before Court - When suit itself not maintainable as against petitioner, decree cannot be executable and it can be challenged at any stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings - It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and - That apart plea of maintainability of suit is essentially a legal plea - Specific pleas were taken or no precise issues were framed is of little consequence - . Moreover, Execution Petition is barred by limitation, since it was filed after period of Court below ought not to have been restored same by allowing petition to condone delay - Civil Revision Petition allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioners, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, challenged the validity of the execution proceedings initiated by respondents who obtained a decree against the Housing Board. The court noted that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable against the Housing Board, as per the specific statutory bar under the relevant Housing Board Act (!) .
The court emphasized that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and can be challenged at any stage, including during execution proceedings or collateral proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
It was held that the execution petition filed after a significant delay—beyond the prescribed limitation period—is barred by limitation, and the period begins from the date of the decree, not the date of the order dismissing the appeal or other proceedings (!) (!) .
The court observed that once an execution petition is dismissed for default, it cannot be restored beyond a statutory period, and any attempt to do so through a petition to condone delay is not permissible, especially under the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act and CPC (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that a decree obtained without jurisdiction or through proceedings that are barred by law is a nullity and cannot be enforced. Such defects can be raised at any stage, including during execution or collateral proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
It was highlighted that the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits challenging acquisition proceedings is explicitly excluded under relevant laws, and such matters should be addressed through constitutional remedies or writ petitions in higher courts (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the bar of jurisdiction under the relevant statutes, combined with the limitations on filing and restoring execution petitions, renders the entire execution process invalid. The proceedings initiated by the respondents were found to be time-barred and procedurally irregular (!) (!) .
As a result, the court set aside the order passed in the execution proceedings and declared the entire execution process as null and void, leading to the dismissal of the civil revision petition (!) .
The principles of law applied reinforce that jurisdictional defects and violations of statutory limits fundamentally undermine the enforceability of decrees and execution proceedings, and such issues can be raised at any stage of the legal process (!) (!) (!) .
The case underscores the importance of timely filing of execution petitions and adherence to procedural and statutory requirements, failing which the proceedings can be dismissed as barred by limitation or invalid due to lack of jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of CPC., to set aside the docket order to issue fresh direction warrant passed on 22.06.2018 in E.P.No.3495 of 2015 in O.S.No.4714 of 1999 on the file of the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. This Civil Revision Petitions is directed as against the docket order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in E.P.No.3495 of 2015 in O.S.No.4714 of 1999, thereby issuing fresh warrant as against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondents are the decree holders. The petitioner acquired land for the development of Besent Nagar Phase-II scheme for the total extent of 96.92 acres comprised in Survey No.88/1, 2 etc of Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai. For the administrative purpose, the entire extent of 96.92 acres was split up into five blocks. The land in survey No.86/13A and 86/13B ad measuring 20 cents and 21 cents respectively, falls in block No.III out of the total extent of 23.44 acres. The Acquisition Officer has passed an award vide Award No.5/86 dated 23.09.1986 including the land comprised in Survey No.86/13A and 86/13B ad measuring 20 cents and 21 cents respectively.
3. The land comprised in survey No.86/13A to an extent of 20 cents registered in the name of Kadambadi Ammal under patta No.30. She had sold it in favour of the first respondent herein on 14.04.1981 vide registered document No.1346/81. Similarly, the another land to an extent of 21 cents comprised in Survey No.86/13B registered in the name of one Durairaj under patta No.150. He had sold out the said land in favour of the second respondent herein on 26.03.1981 vide document No.2285/81. Both the respondents herein have purchased the said properties after 4(1) notification dated 09.08.1978. As per the award, they were ordered to pay the compensation on production of original documents. Aggrieved by the said award the respondents filed petition in L.A.O.P.No.146 of 1987 before the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and by the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990, the said Court fixed the land value at Rs.500/- per cent against the value at Rs.328/-.
4. In fact, the respondents filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.17231 and 17232 of 1997 for direction directing the petitioner to consider their application for issuance of no objection certificate on 04.06.1997. Both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by an order dated 19.11.1997 with liberty to prosecute appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. Even before the said writ petitions, they also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.11895 of 1986 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 18.11.1988.
5. While being so, suppressing the above facts, the respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.4717 of 99 for declaration declaring that the award passed in Award No.5 of 1986 dated 23.09.1986 has become unenforceable and mandatory direction directing the petitioner to issue no objection certificate in respect of the above said properties in favour of them as per their application dated 04.06.1997 to deal with the properties. The said suit was decreed on 30.04.2001 and the petitioner preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.273 of 2003 and the same was also dismissed on 08.10.2001. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Second Appeal with the delay of 748 days before this Court and it was also dismissed on 05.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(CS)No.18145 of 2014 to condone the delay of 1906 days and the same was also dismissed on 17.11.2014.
6. In the mean while, on the strength of the decree obtained by the respondents, they filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.3495 of 2015 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, to execut
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
