IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09/08/2002 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 2076 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 12363 of 2001 and W.M.P.Nos. 18118, 18119/2001 and W.V.M.P.Nos.348 and 625 of 2002. W.P.No. 2076/2000 1. N. Ramasamy 2. R. Shanmugham 3. V.R. Sampath 4. Nallavaradakonar 5. V.M. Palaniappan 6. M. Rangasamy 7. Marudakonar 8. Palaniappan 9. Palanisamy 10. V.K. Nanjappan 11. P. Ramasamy 12. K. Venkatachalakonar 13. Karupakkal 14. Natarajan 15. Karuppasamy. .. Petitioners. -Vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme – II, Coimbatore – 18. 3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai-35. .. Respondents
W.P.No. 12363/2001
1. R. Savithiri
2. R. Nandagopal
3. Mrs. Gandhimathi
.. Petitioners.
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme – II,
Coimbatore – 18.
3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
represented by its Managing
Director, Nandanam,
Chennai-35.
4. Union of India,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
represented by Executive Engineer,
Civil Engineering Division III,
Civil Construction Unit,
Koramangala, Bangalore.
(R-4 impleaded as per order of Court
dated 22-2-2002).
.. Respondents.
Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of
Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.
!For Petitioners in both W.Ps. : Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior counsel
for Mr. B. Rajendran
^For Respondents 1 and 2 in both W.Ps. : Mr. S. Kandaswamy, Special Govt.,
Pleader for
Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, Additional Advocate
General for Mr. D. Veerasekaran for R-3 in
both W.Ps.
Mr. R. Santhanam for R-4 in W.P.12363/2001.
:COMMON ORDER
Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16-11-99, rejecting
their request for re-conveyance of their land acquired for the purpose of
housing scheme at Coimbatore, the petitioners numbering 15 have filed W.P.No.
2076 of 200 0 on various grounds to quash the said proceedings and direct the
first respondent-Government to release/exempt the properties of the
petitioners in S.F.Nos. 186, 188, 282, 283, 284, 284/1, 284/2, 285/1, 285/2,
286, 286/1, 286/2, 287, 287/2, 288, 289, 29 0, 291, 293, 295, 295/1 and 295/2
of Koundampalayam village, Coimbatore District and in S.F.No. 430
Telungupalayam village, Coimbatore District from the land acquisition
proceedings.
2. Questioning the very same Government Order and praying for similar
direction, R. Savithiri and two others have preferred W.P.No. 12363 of 2001.
The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:
The petitioners are all land owners in Goundampalayam village, Coimbatore
Taluk and District situated in Survey Nos. 186, 188, 282, 283, 284,284/1,
284/2, 285/1, 285/2, 286, 286/1, 286/2, 287, 287/2, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293,
295, 295/1 and 295/ 2 and Telungupalayam S.F.No. 430 and they are all
adjoining and continuous owners of the property and these lands were sought to
be acquired by the Housing and Urban Development Department. By constructing
pucca houses, they are living in the land for t ime immemorial. Most of the
petitioners are illiterate and they are not aware of the land acquisition
proceedings. Only at a later stage they came to know that their lands were
sought to be acquired by Housing Department for implementation of the housi ng
scheme; accordingly they filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 8361/88
challenging the acquisition proceedings. By Order dated 29-7-97, this Court
disposed of the said writ petition along with two other writ petitions with a
direction to the pet itioners to make an application to the Housing Board
within 4 weeks seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. In
the same order, this Court further observed that on such application being
made, the Housing Board shall consider the reque sts of the writ petitioners
and take a decision in terms of resolution No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86. The Court
has granted three months’ time to the Housing Board to dispose of the
representation. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of
thi s Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1300 to 1302/97 dated 21-10-97. Pursuant to
the said direction, they made a representation. Without considering their
representation and giving personal hearing, by order dated 16-11-99, the
Government of Tamil Nadu, first r espondent herein, passed the impugned order,
rejecting their request of reconveyance. Hence the present writ petitions.
3. Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit for first respondent disputing various
averments made by the petitioners. It is stated that at the instance of the
Execut ive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit,
Coimbatore, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring an
extent of 159.04 acres in Goundampalayam village of Coimbatore North Taluk.
After following the mandatory provisio ns of the Land Acquisition Act and the
Rules made thereunder and after giving adequate opportunity to all the land
owners and the persons interested, the land acquisition officer passed awards
on various dates. Pursuant to the acquisition, the Governmen t considered the
same in consultation with the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board. At the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar
Neighbourhood Scheme at Coimbatore was formulated for construction of houses
to low income and middle income group people. The petitioners’ lands are
situated in the vantage point in the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme. As the
exclusion of the petitioners’ land will affect the comprehensive nature of the
scheme, their representations were co nsidered and rejected by the Government.
4. Tamil Nadu Housing Board-third respondent in W.P.No. 12363 of 2001 has
filed a counter affidavit highlighting the strict compliance of the Land
Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder. They also explained that the
Board’s resolu tion No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86 is not connected to this land
acquisition subject, but it relates to availing loan from Hudco for E.W.S.
Houses at Mogappair, Chennai. However, there is another Board’s resolution
No.67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 in respect of Valasara vakkam, Chennai Scheme, but the
Government have not taken any decision on the resolution passed by them and no
orders have been passed so far and, therefore, as on date, there is no legal
sanctity on the Board’s resolution.
5. Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests Department, impleaded
as 4th respondent in W.P.No.12363/2001 has also filed an affidavit informing
this Court that pursuant to the decision taken by Botanical Survey of India,
at the request of the Ministry, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by order dated
10-1-2001, allotted lands to an extent of 2.09 Acres at Vadavalli village,
Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore and the Ministry had paid a total sale
consideration of Rs.1,25,42,964/-. The Ministry has parted with the entire
sale consideration and they have also taken possession of the allotted
premises as early as on 8-8-2001. The said lands were purchased by the
Ministry for the purpose of putting up residential accommodation for its e
mployees and after taking possession of the lands, the department has
initiated action for plan approval from the appropriate authorities and has
also spent huge amount towards planning of the project and barbed wire fencing
around the premises.
6. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for
the State Government.
7. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
after taking me through the earlier order of this Court dated 29-7-97 in
W.P.Nos. 8361 of 88 etc., batch, would contend that the first respondent
committed an error in not complying with the positive direction issued
therein. He also contended that the Government or the Housing Board ought to
have given a reasonable opportunity of representation before chossing to
reject the claim after a period of two years. On th e other hand, Mr. R.
Muthukumaraswami, learned Additional Advocate General, after drawing my
attention to the ultimate decision of this Court, namely, dismissal of the
writ petitions with a direction and observation, contended that pursuant to
the direct ion, the petitioners/land owners made a representation to the
Government, and that the Government after consultation with the requisitioning
body, namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, came to the conclusion that the land
in question is needed for completion of the scheme and the same cannot be
excluded, and rightly rejected their application. He also contended that the
correct resolution of the Housing Board is resolution No. 67/86. Since the
same is not a general resolution applicable to all land owners and is confined
to acquisition of land in respect of Valasaravakkam, Chennai scheme, the same
has no bearing with the request of the petitioners. Further, according to
him, the said resolution of the Housing Board has not been approved by the
Governmen t. Hence, it has no legal sanctity.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
9. Before considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that in these
writ petitions the petitioners are not challenging the acquisition
proceedings. As a matter of fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Additional Advocate G eneral, in the earlier round of litigation, P.D.
Dinakaran, J. in W.P.Nos. 8361/88, 6236/89 and 8109/89, after referring to a
decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. L.
Krishnan and others (1996–S.C. 497) as well as a Division Bench decision of
this Court in W.A.Nos. 508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996 dismissed all the
writ petitions on 29-7-97. However, he made an observation giving liberty to
the petitioners to make an application to the Housing Board seeking
reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. Since the controversy
rests on the said observation, it is relevant to refer the same: (para 13)
“13. In the light of the above decisions, in AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 497 and
the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996, I find
the above writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with the observation that
if the wri t petitioners satisfy the requirements of resolution No.7/86 dated
2-7-1986 passed by the Housing Board it is for the petitioners to make an
application seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. In
such event, the Housing Board shall c onsider such requests of the writ
petitioners and take a decision in terms of resolution No. 7/86 dated
2-7-1986. The petitioners shall make such representation to the Housing Board
for reconveyance within four weeks from today and the same shall be dis posed
of by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of the
representation.”
It is also not disputed that the said order of the learned Judge has been
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1300 to
1302 of 97 dated 21-10-1997. While confirming the order of the learned Single
Judge, the Division Bench h as extended the time for making the representation
to the authority concerned by another six weeks. In the meanwhile the
petitioners made a joint representation to the Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development, Chennai-9 and Managing Direct or, Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, Chennai-35 seeking reconveyance of their land. Apart from the
general representation dated 25-9-97, the petitioners have also made
individual representation on 26-9-97. The individual representations have
been made to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing Department
and Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Board, Coimbatore. In all
the individual representation, they prayed for exclusion of their land from
the acquisition. The common representati on dated 25-9-97 and the individual
representation dated 26-9-97 find a place at pages 19 to 26 of the typed-set
of papers filed along with the writ petition. Though in the common
representation, they prayed for reconveyance of their land in question, i n
the individual representation, they prayed for exclusion of their land from
the scheme area.
10. On receipt of the representation of the petitioners, the
Government-Housing Department, after referring the relevant resolution,
namely, resolution No. 67/6 – 86 dated 2-7-86 of the Tamilnadu Housing Board
and in the light of the fact that the Government have not taken any decision
regarding the same, after considering the fact that the exclusion of the
petitioners’ land will affect the comprehensive nature of the Anna Nagar
Neighbourhood Scheme, rejected their request.
11. Now I shall consider the direction of this Court with reference to the
resolution of the Housing Board. In the order of the learned single Judge, it
is stated that in the event of petitioners’ satisfying the requirement of
resolution 7 /86 dated 2-7-86 passed by the Housing Board on making an
application of the petitioners, the Housing Board shall consider such request
and take a decision in terms of the said resolution. Admittedly, resolution
No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86 has nothing to do w ith the acquisition proceedings.
The correct resolution is No. 67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 and the same had been
passed in respect of Valasarkam Chennai Scheme giving certain reliefs to
persons having constructed houses in the scheme area. However, it is to be
noted that till date the Government have not taken any decision or approved
the said resolution. In such a circumstance, inasmuch as no orders have been
passed so far, as rightly pointed out, there is no legal sanctity on the
Board’s resolution. Merel y because there is a reference to the said
resolution in the earlier orders, in the light of the fact that first of all
the correct resolution had not been brought to the notice of the Court and
consequently even the correct resolution yet to be approved or accepted by the
Government, there is no legal sanctity on the said resolution. Learned
Additional Advocate General has also brought to my notice a copy of the
resolution No. 67/6-86 dated 2-7-86. As stated earlier, the said resolution
relates to th e lands acquired in Valasaravakkam village. The resolution of
the Housing Board was to the effect that the entire extent of land in
Valasaravakkam village notified for acquisition as per declaration under
Section 6 of the Act may be acquired inclusive o f building which have come up
after 4 (1) Notification and that the administrative and development charges
may be collected from the respective land owners after allotting the same
under ex-owners category to avoid unnecessary hardship. No doubt, in the same
resolution, it is stated that similar procedure may be adopted in various
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes. The Board accepted the resolution on
11-6-86. However, as rightly pointed out, the same has not been approved or
accepted by the Governmen t till date. In the light of the said position and
inasmuch as it is not a general resolution applicable to all the land owners
whose lands were acquired by the Housing Board, I am of the view that the
respondents cannot be compelled to apply and implem ent the said resolution to
some other scheme namely the Anna Nagar Scheme at Coimbatore. Even otherwise,
on receipt of common and individual representations from the petitioners, the
Housing Department of Government of Tamil Nadu after getting report fr om the
requisitioning body regarding feasibility, came to the conclusion that since
the petitioners’ lands are situated in the vantage point in the Anna Nagar
Neighbourhood Scheme and that the exclusion of their lands will affect the
comprehensive nature of the scheme, rejected their request. Though Mr. M.
Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended
that the impugned order of the Government is not in accordance with the
specific direction of the learned Judge, in the lig ht of the fact that the
resolution No.67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 of the Housing Board does not relate to
Anna Nagar Scheme, Coimbatore, but it relates to Valasaravakkam scheme and not
approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu till date, that the petitioners have
given representations not only to the Housing Board, but also to the Housing
department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and that the Government, after
considering all these aspects including the relevant facts and circumstances,
have rejected their representations, I do not find any substance in the said
contention. No doubt, even though the learned senior counsel has referred to
a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of T.N. etc., v. V.
Pramela Rajaram and others (1996 W.L.R. 761) and a decision of K.
Govindarajan, J. in W.P.No.8512/2000 dated 19-7-2000, for the aforesaid
reasons, I am of the view that the direction in those decisions are not
helpful to the petitioners’ case. I have already referred to the fact that in
the individual representation, the petitioners have prayed for exclusion of
their lands from the acquisition proceedings, and only in the joint
representation they made a prayer for reconveyance. I have already referred
to the fact that this Court has dismissed their earlier writ petitions
challenging the acquisition proceedings. Though the Government have power to
exempt a particular land from the Scheme area, in the light of the report of
the Housing Board that the exclusion of the petitioners’ land will affect t he
comprehensive nature of the scheme, I am of the view that this Court cannot
issue mandamus either to release or exempt the properties of the petitioners
as claimed in these writ petitions. Further, pursuant to the request made by
the Botanical Survey of India which is a department under Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Union of India, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has
alloted lands to an extent of 2.09 Acres at Vadavalli village, Coimbatore
Taluk, Coimbatore and the Ministry had paid a total sale consideration of
Rs.1,25,42,964/- and they have also taken possession of the allotted premises
as early as on 8-3-2001. Pursuant to the same, it is stated that the Ministry
are in the process of finalising tenders and at the stage of awarding the work
to the successful tenderer for the construction of residential accommodation
and because of the order of this Court, they are not in a position to award
contract to the successful tenderer.
12. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any error or
infirmity in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent; consequently
both the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
The interim stay granted in W.M.P.No. 18118/2001 is vacated. W.M.P.No.
18119/2001, W.V.M.P.Nos. 348 and 625 of 2002 are closed.
Index:- Yes
Internet:- Yes
R.B.
To:-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme – II,
Coimbatore – 18.
3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
represented by its Managing
Director, Nandanam,
Chennai-35.
4. Union of India,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
represented by Executive Engineer,
Civil Engineering Division III,
Civil Construction Unit,
Koramangala, Bangalore.
P. SATHASIVAM, J.
Order in W.P.Nos.
2076/2000 and 12363/2001
and
WMP Nos. 18118, 18119/2001
WVMP Nos. 348 and 625/2002