Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P.B. BALAJI, JJ.
V. Anantharaman – Appellant
Versus
The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.A. No. 1117 of 2020 & CMP. Nos. 13655 & 13656 of 2020
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Land Acquisition - Property Rights - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 4(1), Section 24(2)] - The court discussed the appellant's challenge to the letter directing him to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) for constructing a building on the acquired land. The court cited the Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 4(1) and Section 24(2) and emphasized that a subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the original acquisition or claim any benefits. The court also highlighted the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot use the property against the interest of the authority that acquired the land.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged a letter directing him to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) for constructing a building on the acquired land. The appellant claimed rights and title over the land, but the court found that he was a subsequent purchaser and had no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, as a subsequent purchaser, had no right to challenge the original acquisition or claim any benefits. The court emphasized that the sale transaction after the issuance of the Section 4(1) notification was void and did not confer any right or title over the subsequent purchaser of the property.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's claim of rights and title over the acquired land, the challenge to the letter directing him to obtain an NOC from TNHB, and the validity of the sale transaction after the issuance of the Section 4(1) notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the original acquisition or claim any benefits. The court also emphasized that the sale transaction after the issuance of the Section 4(1) notification was void and did not confer any right or title over the subsequent purchaser of the property.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the court confirmed the writ court's decision. The appellant was not entitled to claim any benefits and could not challenge the letter directing him to obtain an NOC from TNHB. The court also noted that the appellant's challenge after a lapse of 33 years was not sustainable in law.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.09.2020 in W.P.No.10065 of 2020)
D. Krishnakumar, J.
1.The appellant herein has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 10065 of 2020 challenging the impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.03.2020, directing the petitioner to furnish ''No Objection Certificate'' from the 2nd respondent/TNHB for the purpose of considering the application submitted by the appellant seeking for planning permission. The said writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court by order dated 09.09.2020 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings has been upheld by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and the compensation amount has also been deposited before the competent Civil Court. Challenging the said order the writ court, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had purchased the subject property by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1988 from one Mrs. Charumathi Rajamani. Since he wanted to develop the property, he entered into a Development Agreement and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of M/s.KCEE Properties Private Limited. The appellant submitted an application to the 1st respondent seeking sanction to construct a building consisting stilt + 4 Floors. The 1st respondent through impugned dated 04.03.2020 directed the appellant to get a NOC from the TNHB/2nd respondent. Challenging the same, the appellant filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed by the Writ Court. Aggrieved by the said of the writ court, the present appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants'' neighbours in Valasarawakkam Village were issued planning permission in the locality, without insisting on production of NOC from the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that issuance of ''No Objection Certificate'' by the 2nd respondent for considering application for planning permission was decided by this Court in WP.No. 36111 of 2015. By order dated 22.09.2006, this Court directed the planning authority to consider the application for approval without insisting on production of NOC from the 2nd respondent. The SLP (Civil No. 20551/2006 preferred by the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 05.01.2009. Thereafter, much later the same issue was decided by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1452 of 2010 on 19.10.2011, concerning to the earlier decisions in the light of orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, several writ petitions were allowed and these decisions ordered not to insist on NOC from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the writ court observing that the appellant herein cannot be permitted to use the property against the interest of the TNHB which has become the owner of the property is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the appellant herein namely V.Anantharaman is an encroacher and claiming rights and title over the acquired land in survey no. 150/1A for the extent of 2 grounds 120 Sq.ft at Valasaravakkam Village, Maduravoyal Taluk. The award no. 9/86 dated 20.09.86 for 2.33 ¾ Acres, 1/87 dt. 31.12.87 for 0.77 Ac and 1/91 dated 12.12.1991 for 0.40 ¾ Ac for S.No. 1501A was passed in favour of land owner/interested person, namely Rani Dharmaraj. Since there was a dispute over the apportionment of extent and compensation, the entire compensation amount was deposited in Court under Section 30 & 31 (2) Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short L.A Act). A part of the land measuring an extent of 0.27 acres out of 3.54 acre was taken over by TNHB on 09.09.1999 and balance was not handed over due to encroachment. After that the appellant herein had purchased the disputed property illegally .
5. The learned standing counsel would fu
A subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the original acquisition or claim any benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The sale transaction after the issuance of the Section 4(1) notifi....
Subsequent purchasers post-notification under the Land Acquisition Act cannot challenge acquisition proceedings, as such sales are deemed void and they may only seek compensation.
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession....
Once the land is acquired and vests in the State, it cannot be divested, and subsequent purchasers have no authority to challenge the acquisition proceeding.
Subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge acquisition proceedings if the purchase occurred after the Notification under Section 4, as such sales are void against the State.
A purchaser of the land after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation. Any....
No reasonable explanation being given by the petitioners for such inordinate delay, this court should not go into the stale demand of the petitioners after lapse of years.
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
