Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Vani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 890, 891 of 2009, C.M.P. Nos. 8812, 8814 of 2009, W.M.P. Nos. 6557, 16094 of 2024, W.P. No. 21559 of 2013
Decided On : 25-07-2024
Land Acquisition - Writ Appeal - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1), 6, 12(2), 48-B, 24(2) - The court upheld the validity of the land acquisition process, emphasizing that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the acquisition after the notification under Section 4(1) and that the acquisition proceedings were concluded lawfully.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the land acquisition process for a housing scheme, where the appellants claimed that the acquisition was invalid due to delays and subsequent sales of the land after the original notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings were valid and concluded in 1988, and the appellants, as subsequent purchasers, had no right to challenge the acquisition as their purchases occurred after the notification under Section 4(1).
Issues: Whether the subsequent purchasers could challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act after the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any sale of land after the notification under Section 4(1) is void and does not confer any rights to the purchaser, thus they cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Result: The Writ Appeals and Writ Petition were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Chandru in W.P. No. 11645 of 1999.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Chandru in W.P. No. 20340 of 1999.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents particularly 1st respondent to re-convey the lands in S. No. 187/1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 187/3, Land Acquisition 188 Alamelumangapuram Housing Scheme, Vellore admeasuring 3.70 acres from the acquisition proceedings notified under Section 4(1) of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 685, Housing and Development dated 29.04.1984 and published in Government Gazette dated 19.09.1984, in exercise of its power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.
1. The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 19.11.2008 passed in W.P. Nos. 11645 & 20340 of 1999.
2. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants before us.
3. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board proposed to acquire larger extent of land in Sathuvachari and Alamelumangapuram Villages in Vellore Taluk and District for forming Vellore Neighbourhood Scheme. The lands covered 23 acres and 84 cents comprised in 70 Survey Numbers were sought to be acquired from 85 individual owners. The Alamelumangapuram Panchayat by Resolution No. 10 dated 11.08.1975 approved a layout consisting 20 plots. Road portion has been handed over to the Panchayat. Thereafter, Section (2) Notification was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 685, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 19.09.1984. Section 6 Publication was made by G.O.Ms. No. 1047, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 14.07.1986 on 15.07.1986. Award No. 3 of 1988 was passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Unit, Vellore on 12.07.1988. Notice under Section 12(2) was issued to the land owners on 19.07.1988. Thereafter, on the same day, Notice was issued to the owners to vacate and hand over possession. Accordingly, the authorities have taken possession of the land. The land owners handed over possession to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition on 22.07.1988. Consequently, Transfer Charge Certificate was handed over by the Special Revenue Inspector to the Head Surveyor, Vellore Housing Unit on 01.08.1988. Compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act was deposited on the file of Sub Court, Vellore on 30.04.1988. Thereafter, patta transferred in the name of the Housing Board vide Patta No. 142 mutations were effected in the 'A' Register and the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was entered. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board approved layout scheme and in the year 2019, a Police complaint was registered by the Executive Engineer against the encroachers.
4. Mr.Jenasenan, learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that after passing of award on 12.07.1988, Transfer Charge Certificate was handed over by the Special Revenue Inspector to the Head Surveyor, Vellore Housing Unit. The original owners filed W.P. No. 6411 of 1989, questioning Section 4(1) Notification and its declaration. The writ petition was allowed on 11.09.1991 quashing the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, the erstwhile original land owner Mr.Kanniappa Mandri/Petitioner in W.P. No. 6411 of 1989 by way of three registered Sale Deeds sold an extent of 3 acres and 70 cents in favour of Smt.K.Vani/appellant in W.A.No. 890 of 2009. On 21.04.1994, Mr.Kanniappa Manthiri further sold an extent of 46.5 cents by way of registered Sale Deed dated 21.04.1994 in favour of A.K.Pani. The contention of the Mr.Jenasenan, learned counsel for the appellants would be that layout was approved at the instance of Smt.K.Vani on 20.04.1995 and road portions were gifted to Vellore Panchayat Union by way of registered Gift Deed dated 02.08.1995. 15 plots have
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
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....
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
