IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Velayuthamudaliar – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 372, 373, 1139, 1140, 1143, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1533 to 1544, 1684, 1685, 2144, 2145, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2241, 2242, 3216, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3224, 3225, 3226, 3227, 3299, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304, 3305, 3306, 3307, 3308, 3309, 3310 of 2004, W.A. Nos. 1904, 1905 of 2010, W.A. Nos. 881, 882 of 2011, W.P. Nos. 29762, 35693, 35694, 35695 of 2004, W.P. Nos. 24419, 24705, 32471, 45452 of 2006, W.A.M.P. Nos. 644, 2124, 2125, 2128, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2136, 2137, 2140, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2862 to 2885, 3167, 3168, 3946, 3950, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3954, 3955, 3956, 3957, 3958, 3962, 3963, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 4136, 4137, 4138, 4139, 4140, 4141, 4142, 4143, 4144, 4145, 4146, 4147, 4148, 4149, 4150, 4151, 4152, 4153, 4154, 4155, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4159, 6035, 6037, 6038, 6039, 6040, 6041, 6042, 6043, 6044, 6045, 6046, 6047, 6048, 6049, 6050, 6051, 6052, 6053, 6054, 6055, 6056, 6057, 6058, 6226, 6227, 6228, 6229, 6230, 6233, 6234, 6235, 6236, 6237, 6238, 6239, 6240, 6241, 6242, 6243, 6244, 6245, 6246, 6247, 6248, 6249, 23916, 36156, 42983, 42985, 42987 of 2004, W.V.M.P. Nos. 55, 64, 65 of 2009
Decided On : 19-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal foundation for writ appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding notification validity. (Para 3 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. court observations on the validity of acquisition process. (Para 12 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. ratio on necessity of independent application of mind. (Para 18 , 21 , 28) |
| 5. concludes absence of legal validity in notifications. (Para 24) |
| 6. court's final decision on quashing acquisition. (Para 25 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Prayer in Writ Appeals: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders dated 13.08.2003 made in W.P. Nos. 38690 of 2002 etc. batch, the order dated 23.09.2003 made in W.P. No. 39788 of 2002 etc. batch and the order dated 23.09.2003 made in 8344 and 8345 of 2003.
Prayer in Writ Petitions: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings viz. G.O.Ms. No. 327, Housing and Urban Development dated 19.8.2004 on the file of the first respondent, the Declaration under Section 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 and Rc.A1/7261/98 dated 24.7.2003, the notification under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos. 9/1, 11, 12/3 in No. 65, Chembarambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District are concerned.
1. The official respondents in the writ petitioners are the appellants herein and aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petitions filed challenging the Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 489, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.10.1999 and Section 6 Declaration of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 [in short “Act 1984”] dated 06.12.2000, vide common orders dated 13.08.2003 and 23.09.2003, these writ appeals are filed.
FACTS LEADING TO THE WRIT APPEALS
2. Facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals, briefly narrated, are as follows:
| S. No. | Block No. | 4(1) Notification | Section 6 Declaration | Extent of Land | Award No. and dated |
| W.A. Nos. 373, 1684, 1685, 2144, 2234, 2237, 3219 to 3227, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304 of 2004 - 19 Writ Appeals | |||||
| 1 | Narasingapuram Block I | G.O.Ms. No. 488, dated 21.10.1999 - Published in Gazette on 01.12.1999 | G.O.Ms. No. 489 dated 06.12.2000, published in Gazette on 07.12.2000 | 10.48.5 Hectares in S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 etc. in Narasimgap uram Village | No. 3/2002 dated 25.11.2002 |
| W.A. Nos. 2235, 2236, 2238 to 2242, 3309 and 3310 of 2004 - 9 Writ Appeals | |||||
| 2 | Narasingapuram Block II | G.O.Ms. No. 375, dated 31.08.1999 - Published in Gazette on 29.09.1999 | G.O.Ms. No. 403 dated 06.10.2000, published in Gazette on 06.10.2000 | 11.86.5 Hectares in S. Nos. 30, 31 etc. in Narasimgap uram Village | No. 2/2002 dated 20.09.2002 |
| W.A. Nos. 1139, 1140, 1143, 1146, 1147, 2145, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2231, 2232, 2233, 3216, 3217, 3218, 3305 and 3306 of 2004 - 19 Writ Appeals | |||||
| 3 | Narasingapuram Block III | G.O.Ms. No. 446, dated 21.10.1999, Published in Gazette on 01.12.1999 | G.O.Ms. No. 493 dated 06.12.2000, published in Gazette on 07.12.2000 | 11.87.0 Hectares in S. Nos. 68/1, 2 etc. in Narasimgap uram Village | No. 4/2002 dated 25.11.2002 |
(i) Publication of Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration were made in newspapers, which have no circulation in the locality and therefore, the acquisition is liable to be quashed.
(ii) There is no consideration of the objections by the Land Acquisition Officer and there being a total non application of mind to the objections raised before the Land Acquisition Off
State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh
Surinder Singh Brar vs. Union of India
Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others vs. Uma Maheswari Ramasamy and Others
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Uma Maheswari Ramaswamy
Thirumani Dharmaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Union of India vs. Krishan Lal Arneja
Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others
Brij Bhargava and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Bondu Ramasamy and Others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others
Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Others
E.P. Roayppa vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Gojer Brothers Private Limited and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai
Jayabheri Properties Private Limited and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal
Krishnan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Munshi Singh vs. Union of India
N.D. Ramanujam and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana
The Land Acquisition Officer's failure to independently assess objections vitiates the acquisition process, which must comply with statutory requirements including Section 5A of the Land Acquisition ....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The finality of land acquisition proceedings and the principle that challenges to such proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable time.
Procedural lapses in land acquisition notification, hearing, and timelines vitiate proceedings, but completed construction and record loss warrant fresh award under original Act rather than new regim....
The court ruled that any amendment to land acquisition notifications requires a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, ensuring compliance with due process to protect property r....
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.