B.M. PURNACHANDRAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-272
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on January 09,2015

B.M. PURNACHANDRAN Appellant
VERSUS
The Secretary To Government, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Housing And Urban Development Department And Ors. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C.S. Karnan, J. - (1.)THE short facts of the case are as follows:
"The petitioner submits that his brother M. Nithyanandham and himself are joint owners of dry lands measuring to an extent of 20.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1B, 167/2, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 situated at Koyambedu Village, now in Egmore -Nungambakkam Taluk. The said lands originally owned by his grandmother by name B.C. Chellammal, who expired on 24.02.1972 leaving behind a Will dated 20.03.1971 bequeathing all their properties including the above said lands in favour of his brother M. Nithyanandam and the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that even during the life time of his grandmother, a substantial portion of the land belonging to her was divided into plots and a layout plan was made as approved by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Chennai in Letter No. 5659/70. Se.Ma -3 dated 16.11.1970 acquisition proceedings were initiated by the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner further submits that the said land acquisition proceedings were initiated for the purposes of the development of Housing for the Neighbourhood Scheme with respect to the lands measuring 20.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1 -B, 167/2, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 situated at Koyambedu Village, now in Egmore -Nungambakkam Taluk. The said land acquisition proceedings were quashed by this Court. However, the authorities took the issue to the Hon'ble Supreme Court though the Special Leave Petition was filed with heavy delay of four years and above, without notice to the concerned land owners, the delay was condoned and the acquisition proceedings were held to be valid."

(2.)THE petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court deleted only a small extent of land measuring 1.50 acres as reported in, 1996 (7) SCC page 550. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the authorities to demarcate the said land measuring 1.50 acres with specific boundaries. Even this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not Honourably and properly respected by the respondents. Hence, he took further legal steps to safeguard his interest. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent is now making hasty steps to give the land in question to the fourth respondent on huge monetary consideration running into hundreds of crores of rupees and hence the respondents are clearing all the bushes with the help of earth moving machines and are making arrangements to put up fence in and around the above said lands, while the possession of the said land is with him till date and possession is not yet taken by the respondents. Hence, the very removal of the bushes and attempt to put up fence is highly illegal and contrary to law and the respondents may hand over the lands in question to any other third parties contrary to the provision of Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner further submits that he has filed this writ petition in -consequence to the earlier writ petition preferred by him in W.P. No. 17867 of 2010, which he has filed for the following prayers: - -
"Directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to hand over the land measuring 1.50 Acres to the petitioner with specific boundaries in Survey No. 167/9 (sub -divided from S. No. 167/1B) as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 1992 decided on 17.1.1996 (reported in 1996 (7) SCC page 450 and thus render justice."

The above writ petition was taken on file by this Court and interim orders were passed on 05.08.2010. After appearance, the fourth respondent in this writ petition has filed a counter statement stating that by applying urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands are sought to be acquired. The lands are earmarked and is set apart by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the sake of his family residential purposes and it is now sought to be acquired. Hence, he has challenged the fresh acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 20769 of 2010 and the same is taken on file by this Court and the same is also pending. While preferring those writ petitions, informations were gathered by him which resulted in filing of this writ petition. This writ petition is filed on the most important legal issue, namely, the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act, thereby rendering the very acquisition proceedings dated 01.10.1975, published SUPPLEMENT TO PART II SECTION 2 OF TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE as null and void. Challenge to the same though concluded at the stage of Section 6, declaration to the fresh cause of action is given by the respondents to prefer this writ petition. This writ petition is filed on the subsequent development as more fully stated herein. The petitioner further submits that as mentioned earlier the entire acquisition was taken in the name of the dead person B.C. Chellammal. To be more precise, it is submitted that B.C. Chellammal was married to B.R. Chengappa Naidu. They had one child namely B.C. Munirathinam Naidu. His grandfather B.R. Chengappa Naidu died in the year 1970. His grandmother B.C. Chellammal died on 24.02.1972. His father B.C. Munirathinam Naidu having married his mother M. Krishnaveni Ammal had three issues, such as (a) M. Nithyanandam (b) M. Purnachandran (the writ petitioner herein) and his younger sister D. Mohanalakshmi. When Section 4(1) Notification was issued in 1975 his grandmother B.C. Chellammal was not alive, since she died on 24.02.1972. To appreciate the factual details of this writ petition, the complete genealogical tree of his family is narrated hereunder:

Under the Notification, the following extent of lands are sought to be acquired as given under here:

The petitioner further submits that it is a matter of record and further that it may not be denied by the respondents that the entire acquisition proceedings such as Section 4(1) Notification, Section 5(A) Enquiry, Section 6 declaration all were made only in the name of the dead person namely Chellammal. The petitioner further submits that he is aware of his limitation to challenge the above, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court which decided Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 1992, dated 17.01.1996, wherein it reversed the judgment of this Court dated 22.04.1991 as held that Section 6 declaration is valid. Though the acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact remains that the entire proceedings thus conducted was only on the dead person, namely in the name of late B.C. Chellammal. The petitioner further submits that the writ petition preferred is on the reason that the value of lands as on this date under any conservative calculations is easily worth atleast 100 crores. So far neither a single paise has been paid by the respondents as compensation nor the same is deposited by the respondents till date into any Court. After Section 6 declaration, the question of passing of award or holding any enquiry thereof never arose at any relevant point of time.

The petitioner further submits that the entire issue came as a shocking one. When the fourth respondent started troubling this writ petitioner by urgency clause by invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. He was forced to peruse the entire records and to his dismay, he has found that not a single paise is ever made available by way of any deposit for the past 28 years at any Forum till this date. It is claimed by the second and third respondents that Award No. 1 of 1983, dated 29.01.1983 is to an extent of 18.01 Acre and Award No. 2 of 1983 was also passed. The full details of the respective award is enclosed in the typed set. The same may kindly be considered as part and parcel of this affidavit. Award No. 1 is dated 27.01.1983 and Award No. 2 is dated 28.02.1983. As on this date for the past 28 years not a single paise is deposited into the Court though it is so claimed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.)THE second respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed a counter statement and refuted the above writ petition. The second respondent submits that the petitioner herein has filed a similar writ petition No. 19724 of 2005, writ of Mandamus for re -conveyance of the land in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1B, 167/2, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 at Koyambedu Village and the same is pending with this Court for further proceedings. The other writ petition in W.P. No. 20769 of 2010 for challenging the acquisition proceedings and the same was dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2011. The second respondent further submits that in the above circumstances, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, to declare that the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents 2 and 3 with respect to the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1B, 167/2, 167/6 and 168/2, as notified in the notification SUPPLEMENT TO PART II SECTION 2 OF TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, dated 01.10.1975 issue No. 39(A) as published in as declared in SUPPLEMENT TO PART II SECTION 2 OF TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE issue 302 dated 29.09.1978 is invalid, null and void and will not be binding upon the petitioner. The second respondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has acquired the land in Koyambedu Village for the New Neighbourhood Scheme known as K.K. Nagar Part -II scheme. Accordingly, the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 218.30 Acres in Koyambedu Village was approved by Government vide G.O.R.T. No. 221, Housing Department dated 29.08.1975 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 01.10.1975. Further, the Land Acquisition was processed by Land Acquisition Officer as per the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, Award passed and lands taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for locating the peripheral outstation bus terminus by PTC and organizing the Whole -sale market complex as per G.O. Ms. No. 125 dated 20.01.1978. The second respondent further submits that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has paid the compensation amount sum of Rs. 26,45,000/ - vide Cheque Nos. 78 TV 912826 dated 30.03.1979. Therefore, the land has been acquired and handed over to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Subsequently, Award of compensation had also been paid to the land owners.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.