The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the requirement for acquisitions to serve a 'public purpose' as defined under the Act of 2013.

JUDGMENT

(Per : PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and one Mr. C.Ve.Shanmugam - who has introduced himself as a former Law Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for four terms representing AIADMK, are the appellants in these three intra-court writ appeals, challenging the common judgement and order of this Court dated 24.11.2021 in three writ petitions being W.P.Nos. 9285 & 10135 of 2020 and W.P.No.1708 of 2021.

2. By the impugned judgement, learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the acquisition of 'Veda Nilayam' [a private residential property in Chennai; wherein late Dr. J.Jayalalithaa lived] by the State of Tamil Nadu, for being converted into a memorial in the name of Dr.J.Jayalalithaa. The said acquisition was under 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' (for short - 'RFCTLARR Act of 2013' or 'The Act of 2013'). The impugned judgement holds inter alia that, the acquisition in question was illegal on more than one counts:- firstly, that procedurally it was illegal, and secondly - more importantly holding that the said acquisition could not be said to be for any 'public purpose', as defined under the Act of 2013.

3. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) can not be said - not to have locus to say something about the memorial in the name of Late Dr. J.Jayalalithaa. For that reason, inspite of contest on behalf of the original writ petitioners, leave to appeal was granted to it vide order dated 15.12.2021, inter-alia observing / recording therein that, the appellants need to explain as to why they did not approach this Court, when the writ petitions were being considered by learned Single Judge and why they have approached this Court, after the judgement is pronounced in the writ petitions. That explanation has come, which is noted in Para: 5.3 and the consequence thereof is noted in the later part of this judgement (Para: 11.2 and 11.3).

4. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate for the contesting respondents – original writ petitioners and Mr.Shunmuga Sundaram, learned Advocate-General for the State Authorities.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has made various submissions.

5.1 On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the acquisition in question was for 'public purpose' as defined under RFCTLARR Act of 2013, and further that procedurally also the same was legal. It is submitted that the impugned judgement is erroneous since the findings are recorded in absence of any pleadings or proof and further that many of the observations in the impugned judgement are unwarranted. Grievance is also made that the learned Single Judge substituted the satisfaction of the Government qua the necessity for the acquisition in question by applying wrong yardstick and that the function of the executive was assumed by this Court while deciding the writ petitions. By referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.05.2020 recorded on O.S.A.No. 445 of 2018, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge sat in appeal over the said decision. Grievance is also made that there was no material on record to take cognizance of one memorial at Marina Beach. It is submitted by him that the impugned judgement and order of learned Single Judge interfering in the acquisition in question is unsustainable and needs to be interfered with in these appeals.

5.2 In support of the above submissions learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(i) State of Haryana vs State of Punjab reported in (2002) 2 SCC 507,

(ii) Babu Barkya Thakur vs State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC 1203,

(iii) Kannaiyalal Maneklal Chinai vs State of Gujarat reported in (1969) 3 SCC 456,

(iv) Ram Janam Singh vs Sta