G. THOMAS DEVANANDAM AND ORS. Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G. Thomas Devanandam And Ors.
The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The first writ petitioner submits that the second and third petitioners are his brothers and fourth and fifth petitioners are his sisters and he filed this writ petition on behalf of other petitioners and himself. He further submits that his father Late Ganesan was the owner of 2.61 acres of land comprised in Survey No.605 of Mogappair Village, Saidapet Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The said land was subjected to Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after called "the old Act"for the housing scheme sponsored by the second respondent, viz., the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued on 23.10.1975, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 09.11.1978. An award came to be passed in award No.3/1984, dated 03.02.1984 under the old Act.
(2.)The first petitioner additionally added that his father the Late Ganesan challenged the said Land Acquisition Proceedings in W.P.No.5444 of 1988 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition and thereby the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land was quashed. The first respondent herein, viz., the Secretary attached to the Housing and Urban Development Department had filed SLP(C)No.2524 of 1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the case was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, his father expired on 12.07.1994 and the petitioners herein were brought on record as the sole legal-heirs of the late Ganesan. By order dated 08.10.1999 in Civil Appeal No.5902 of 1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal. While allowing the said appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the land is surrounded by the lands released from acquisition, then it remains open to the petitioners to move before the Government and the Housing Board for releasing the land from the acquisition proceedings.
(3.)The first petitioner further submits that a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.22974 of 2010, before this Court seeking directions to the respondents, to consider their representation for release of their land from acquisition in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.10.1999 in Civil Appeal No.5902 of 1999. By order dated 14.12.2010, this Court was pleased to pass the following orders:-
"16. However, since it is the stand of the respondents that the scheme is under progress and they are seeking approval, which is pending with the CMDA, the Housing Board is directed to take steps to get appropriate orders, from the CMDA, within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the CMDA not granting the approval for utilizing that land in question for residential plots with car parking, then the request of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 08.10.1999. In the event of the CMDA granting approval, question of re-conveyance does not arise. However, they cannot go on postpone this on one ground or another inventing new public purposes to reject the claim of the petitioners in view of the Apex Court's especially in the case reported in 2010 (2) CTC 336. Apart from this, when other adjoining lands have been released, the petitioners alone cannot be singled out and different treatment cannot be extended to the petitioners as in my opinion this will amount to clear discrimination in view of the above referred Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment reported in 2012 (2) CTC 336."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.