The court ruled that land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can only be used for public purpose, and sales made against this provision are void, highlighting the need for government discretion in such decisions.

ORDER

The action of the 2^nd respondent in alienating the property by means of sale to the 5^th respondent on the basis of the approval granted by the 1^st respondent citing the said sale as being for public purpose is put in issue before this Court through the present petition.

2. It is the averment of the petitioner that the property comprised in S. No.102/2 to an extent of 0.94 cents at No.140, Thiruvanmiyur Village was allotted to the ancestors of the petitioner through a family partition, which thereafter devolved on the petitioner in and by which she was entitled to 1/5^th share.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’) sought acquisition of an area of 96.92 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers for the purpose of developing the Besant Nagar Phase II Scheme and, accordingly, G.O. Ms. No.1096 dated 17.07.1978 was issued u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published in the official gazette on 9.8.1978, in which the lands in S. No.102/2 was included in Schedule I of the notification.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that after the issuance of the notification, persons connected with the 5^th respondent manoeuvred to acquire the lands secretly and by illegal means in violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Sale deeds in favour of 12 persons, vide Doc. Nos.1613 to 1619 of 1981 dated 17.6.1981 and Doc. Nos.1620 to 1624 of 1981 dated 19.06.1981 were registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, which was at the behest of the 5^th respondent, which would be evident from the settlement/gift deeds executed by 9 persons vide Doc. Nos.2033, 2036, 2093, 2094, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2265 and 2437 of 1995 and three sale deeds in Doc. Nos.2435, 2436 and 2439 of 1995 were registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, in favour of the 5^th respondent measuring an extent of 0.94 cents in S. No.102/2. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the manner in which the aforesaid documents of the year 1981 and 1995 were executed would clearly reveal the manner in which the 5^th respondent had obtained the property, which is with a pre-determined motive to get the property through the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by fraudulent means in violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that on the date when the documents dated 17.6.1981 and 19.6.1981 were executed, the petitioner was only 15 years old, though she was shown as one of the vendors, but the petitioner did not execute any document nor was a party to any registered documents.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that during the subsistence of Section 4 (1) notification, the mother of the petitioner, viz., Nalini, died on 27.6.1979 and her four children, being the legal heirs were entitled to 1/4^th share in S. No.102/2. After the death of the petitioner’s mother, the elder brother of the petitioner, during the subsistence of the land acquisition proceed