SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3381

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : J. Ravindran, Geetha Thamaraiselvan, P. Kumaresan, N. Moorthi, N. Manoharan, V. Ayyadurai, J. Manogar, Kamesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: B. Ravi, G. Masilamani, P.T. Ramadevi.

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 Act.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6 - Writ Appeals against orders allowing writ petitions on land acquisition notification - Court found no independent assessment by Land Acquisition Officer on objections raised by landowners - The declaration under Section 6 must be preceded by application of mind to the objections and report from the Collector - Writ appeals dismissed - Right of landowners to be heard and consider their objections is obligatory under Section 5A - Failure to do so vitiates the acquisition process. (Paras 13-30)

(B) Article 14 of the Constitution - Discrimination in land acquisition proceedings - State must not discriminate among landowners equally situated - Any differential treatment based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of equality. (Paras 28-30)

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:

    2.1. The first appellant had issued land acquisition proceedings for the development of Narasingapuram Satellite Town Scheme in 3 Blocks as under:

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

    2.2. Challenging the aforesaid 4(1) Notifications and Section 6 Declarations, W.P. Nos. 38690 of 2002 etc. batch were filed on the following two grounds:

    (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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top