IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13/09/2002
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR
W.P.No.2610 of 1995 and W.P.No. 2611 of 1995
and W.P.No. 2615 OF 1995
Chithra Rangachari
N. Selvasundari
S. Deivanayaki
D. Amirthapandian
S. Devadoss
J. Jayashree ..... Petitioners in W.P.Nos.2610 to 2615
ï of 1995 respectively
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary to
Government, Housing and
Urban Development Dept.
Madras-9
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
rep. by its Chairman
Madras-35
3. The Special Tahsildar-II
(L.A.), Tamil Nadu Housing
Board Scheme (New Ramavaram
Nandanam, Madras-35 ..... Respondents 1 to 3 in
all the above W.Ps
Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India
for issue of a Writ of Mandamus as stated in
the petitions
For Petitioners :: Mr. Srinivasaraghavan
For Respondents :: Mrs. D. Malarvizhi, G.A.
for R1 and R3
No appearance for R2
:ORDER
Petitioners herein seek a Mandamus forbearing the respondents
herein from acquiring the land in S.No.69/1A and 69/2B, Nesapakkam Village,
Saidapet Taluk, Chengai-MGR District on the strength of the notification
issued in G.O. Ms. No.412, Hou ban Development Department, dated 9-5-1975.
The basis of their claim is that they became the owners of Plot Nos.15 to 18
(Extent 4615 and 4260 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1 and 69/2), Plot No.13 (Extent 2414
sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A), Plot No.14 (Extent 2201 sq.ft. i n S.No.69/1A and
69/2B), Plot No.5 (Extent 2263 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A and 69/2B), Plot No.12
(Extent 2414 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A) and Plot No.6 (Extent 1223 sq.ft. in
S.No.69/2B) respectively. They further plead that the lands were covered to
the extent of 37 cents in S. No.69/1A and 67 cents in S.No.69/2B referred to
earlier. The lands were originally owned by one R. Kandasamy and thereafter
the said lands were plotted out and sold to different buyers and petitioners
being one of them.
2. Petitioners then refer to the Notification dated 11-6-1975
issued under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. They also refer to the
subsequent notification issued on 9-6-1978 under Sec.6 of the said Act. They
point out that R. Kandasamy a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.
No.2338 of 1987 to quash the land acquisition proceedings and this Court, by
its order dated 11-3-1987, granted stay of dispossession. Subsequently, the
said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 24-10-1991, following
the order dated 8-10-1991, passed in W.P. No.3693 of 1996. The notification
was thus quashed.
3. A statement has been made that there were no steps taken
for acquisition of the land and no fresh notification was also issued.
Petitioners then claim that taking advantage of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Amendment Act, 1992 (T.N. Act 5 espondents are threatening to interfere with
the possession of the petitioners on the assumption that the earlier
notifications, which were already quashed, would be revived by reason of Act 5
of 1992. Petitioners, therefore, point out that since the ea rlier
notification had already been quashed by this Court in W.P. No.2338 of 1987,
there would be no question of revival of those notifications by the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1992. It is, therefore, contended that the action
on the part of the State Government is patently incorrect.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners says that
there would be no question of reviving the notifications which were already
finally quashed by the order of this Court which order had also become final.
5. Learned Government Advocate, however, points out that
there is a judgment reported in 1994 W.L.R. 748 (N.D. Rangan and others v.
State of Tamil Nadu and others) which has taken a view that the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board Amendment Act, 1992 5/92) was held to be valid by the Division
Bench judgment of this Court. Under the said Act, it is obvious that the
earlier notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act were revived.
Learned Government Advocate points out that the Tamil Nadu Act 5/1992 would
have the effect of reviving the earlier land acquisition notifications.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, points out
that in this case the judgment in the earlier writ petition had become final
since it was not challenged. My attention was invited to paragraphs 38 and 44
of the said judgment, w under:
“38. The only limitation on the power of the Legislature is that by
such a retrospective legislation, as individual decision inter partes cannot
be affected. In other words, the respondents cannot by virtue of the
Amendment Act contend that the N ication in G.O.Ms.No.847, Housing and Urban
Development,dated 31-5-1983 by which the lands of Mohammed Yosuf in R.S.
No.543/3, Village Road, Nungambakkam, Madras were sought to be acquired has
become valid. If there is any other case in which a similar Notification has
been quashed and the judgment of the Court had become final before the
Amendment Act, the same principle will apply. But none of the petitioners
before us has claimed the benefit of the aforesaid exception and contended
that the validat ion provision is not applicable to them. Hence, we reject
this contention of the petitioner.
44. In any event, we do not want to conclude that issue here. If
there is an appeal against W.P. No.13577 of 1989, the Bench which hears the
same may consider the said question, if raised by the petitioner. If there is
no appeal against the judgm in that writ petition, and it has become final,
the petitioner will have the benefit of it notwithstanding the Amendment Act
as already pointed out by us in paragraph 38 supra.”
From this, learned counsel points out that even the Division Bench of this
Court had held that where the judgment quashing the notification had become
final then, the amendment Act would not have the effect of reviving those
notifications which were alre ady quashed. Learned Government Advocate points
that the aforementioned judgment in W.P.2338 of 1987 had not become final
inasmuch as a writ appeal (W.A. SR. No.14998 of 1992 and c.M.P. No.13350 of
1993) was filed against the same and is still pending. From this the learned
Government Advocate points out that the judgment could not be said to have
become final with the result that the Division Bench judgment which has held
that the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1992 was validly passed and had the effect of
revi ving the earlier notifications would hold the field. Therefore, the
position is obtained that the notifications which were quashed would stand
revived because of the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1992. If that is so then, the
petitions must fail as because of th e revival of the notifications, the State
Government would have the necessary powers to acquire the lands. Writ
petitions have no merits and they are dismissed but without any orders as to
the costs. In the event the writ appeal, which is said to be pe nding, is
allowed, petitioners may have the remedies available to them in law.
Connected W.M.P. Nos.4163 to 4168 of 1995 are closed.
Index:Yes
Website:Yes
Jai
13-09-2002
To:
1. Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Housing andUrban Development Dept.
Madras-9
2. The Chairman
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Madras-35
3. The Special Tahsildar-II
(L.A.), Tamil Nadu Housing Board
New Ramavaram Scheme
Nandanam
Madras-35