Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 41583 of 2002

Advocates

Mr. G. Devadoss For Mr. R. Rabhu Manohar
Mr. R. Lakshmi Narayanan Additional Government Pleader for R-1 and R-2
Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. N. Sampath, CMDA for R-3

Judges

C.S Karnan, J.

Acts

1980 ANDHRA PRADESH 246(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 4, 6, 48 and 55 - General Clauses Act (1897), S.21
SECTION 6 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Section 4(1) Notification, viz., Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development
563Constitution of India, Art.226.Stay, Land Acquisition Act, Ss.4, 6
Rules, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), C.M.D.A, Chennai-8
2001 (3) CTC 233Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1)
Section 6 declaration of the Land Acquisition Act
Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
124(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 4, 6, 28
15(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.23(1) and 11(1)
Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act,
Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S.48-Compensation
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4 & 6 - Transfer
SECTION 55 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SECTION 5 A LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
SECTION 11 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
LAND ACQUISITION ACT
SECTION 6 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
SECTION 7 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act.
Land Acquisition Act, (Amendment) 1984,
Section 4(1) and Section 6
Section 4(1) Notification,
Rule 3(b) of the Rules
11.05.1978, Section 6
Section 4(1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner purchased two parcels of land in Koyambedu Village (Survey Nos. 59/6 and 59/9; extents 0.16 1/2 acre and 0.05 3/4 acre respectively) by registered sale deed dated 27.04.1989. An earlier notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O.Ms No. 105 dated 21.04.1975 (published 21.05.1975) for an 85.12 acre “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme”; a declaration under Section 6 was approved in G.O.Ms No. 974 dated 11.05.1978 (published 15.05.1978) for part of that area. The Section 6 declaration was later quashed by this Court in writ petitions filed by an earlier owner (order dated 08.01.1988), leaving the 4(1) notification intact.

While prior proceedings were pending, the Government issued a fresh Section 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms No. 429 dated 13.11.1998 (published in the Gazette on 16.12.1998) for the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex; a Section 6 declaration followed in G.O.Ms No. 54 dated 02.02.2000 (published 02.02.2000). An award (Award No. 3 of 2001) dated 05.12.2001 was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner and five others objected during enquiries (including under Section 5A and Section 3(b)), participated in award proceedings, refused compensation, and made repeated representations seeking exclusion and corrections. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 seeking to declare the impugned Section 4(1) notification, the Section 6 declaration and the award as no longer operative, illegal and unconstitutional.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the impugned Section 4(1) notification (G.O.Ms No. 429 dated 13.11.1998) and the subsequent Section 6 declaration (G.O.Ms No. 54 dated 02.02.2000) and award (dated 05.12.2001) are invalid, illegal or unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner's lands.
Whether issuing a fresh Section 4(1) notification while an earlier Section 4(1) notification (G.O.Ms No. 105 dated 21.04.1975) remained in force (and was then under challenge) renders the later notification irregular or vitiates proceedings based on it.
Whether the acquisition was a colourable exercise of power done to evade statutory limitations (i.e., whether the public purpose had ceased to exist or the notification was used to circumvent the proviso to Section 6).
Whether procedural requirements (enquiries under Section 5A, Section 3(b), service and publication requirements, survey measurements, fixation of compensation and award proceedings) were complied with so as to sustain the acquisition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The impugned Section 4(1) notification (G.O.Ms No. 429 dated 13.11.1998) was issued while an earlier Section 4(1) notification (G.O.Ms No. 105 dated 21.04.1975) covering the same lands was still in force and under challenge, rendering the later notification invalid or without jurisdiction.
Respondents issued the 1998 notification as a “colourable exercise of power” to bypass the statutory proviso to Section 6 which barred making a fresh Section 6 declaration on the basis of the earlier (1975) notification.
The public purpose professed (initially for a neighbourhood land development scheme, later for Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex and related facilities) had ceased or changed (e.g., bus terminal plans shifted to Vandalur), so there was no subsisting public necessity to justify continued acquisition.
There was inordinate delay (the original notification dated 1975 remained unutilised for decades), inconsistent action by respondents (withdrawing some tracts and selling acquired land at higher prices), and respondents were enriching themselves at the cost of landowners.
Errors and discrepancies in survey, description and patta were not properly rectified and the requisitioning body's reasons overruling objections were not adequately reasoned; prior case law (cited) was relied upon to show these defects vitiate proceedings.

Respondents' (First/Second/CMDA) Arguments

The acquisition proposals for Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex were processed after inspection and proper administrative steps; the Government approved the draft notifications and declarations (G.O.Ms No. 429 and G.O.Ms No. 54) within statutory periods and published them in the Gazette and newspapers.
Enquiries under Section 5A and Section 3(b) were conducted; objections by landowners were communicated to the requisitioning body (CMDA), which furnished reasoned remarks and recommended overruling the objections; award proceedings under Section 11 were conducted and awards passed.
Respondents rely on governmental instructions to send fresh Section 4(1) proposals in cases where a Section 6 declaration had earlier been quashed but the 4(1) notification had been left intact; they contend their actions followed that guidance and administrative practice.
Any discrepancies between patta and documents were addressed by fixing compensation to actual patta extent; the petitioners refused to accept compensation and it was deposited in Court. Possession has been taken and development works (compound, gate, bus terminal planning) followed.
Acquisition was for a public purpose (decongesting Park Town, establishing wholesale market and related public infrastructure); therefore acquisition proceedings are justified and regular.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K. Ponnusamy Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) CTC 233	Successive Section 4(1) notifications issued without withdrawing earlier notification vitiate land acquisition proceedings based on the successive notification.	The Court expressly relied on this authority (see para (ii) of the reasons) to conclude that issuing a later 4(1) notification while an earlier one was still in force was irregular and contributed to quashing the impugned 1998 notification and subsequent proceedings.
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124	Rule on rights of a subsequent purchaser after notification under Section 4(1): purchaser does not acquire title against the State but can claim compensation under the Act.	Cited by the parties (petitioner's bundle of authorities / respondents' arguments). The Court considered the authority in the context of competing contentions about purchasers' rights and compensation claims; the opinion records the citation but does not identify it as the decisive basis of the final order.
Murari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 15	Market value for compensation is fixed with reference to date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification.	Cited by counsel and noted by the Court among the authorities placed before it; the Court considered the legal material while assessing aspects of valuation and timing but the final order rested on other grounds (irregular notifications, lapse of public purpose, delay).
Pappanna v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 Writ L.R. 563	Award passed while a stay granted by High Court in a writ petition was in force — proceedings were quashed.	Cited in argument to show that procedural irregularities or interference by interim orders can vitiate acquisition proceedings; the Court recorded the citation and the principle while assessing the history of litigation and interim relief, and considered it among authorities supporting petitioner's contentions.
Tube Supplies v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1977 Vol (II) CTC 213	Unless the requisitioning body offers reasoned remarks, Section 5A enquiry may be invalid; requisitioning body's reasons are material to sustain the overruling of objections.	Cited by petitioner to argue the need for reasoned remarks; the Court recorded the citation and considered the adequacy of respondents' reasons among the factual matrix, while assessing the propriety of overruling objections.
S. Anjuman Ahmediyya, Muslim Mission v. State, AIR 1980 Andhra Pradesh 246 (referring to AIR 1946 Mad 450)	Section 48 withdrawal from acquisition must be by notification in the Gazette; procedural rules frame the manner of withdrawal and publication is decisive.	Cited by petitioner on withdrawal procedure; the Court recorded the principle that withdrawal must be by Gazette notification. The opinion references this authority in discussing withdrawals (e.g., G.O.Ms No. 232 withdrawing certain lands) and the formal requirements for withdrawal.
Asiya Mariyan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (IV) CTC 125	Proceedings may be quashed where material errors or failures to deal with representations and descriptions in the notification are established.	Cited by petitioner for the proposition that failures to correct material misdescriptions can vitiate acquisition; the Court noted the citation and considered it among the materials relied upon by petitioner.
Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177	Principles on acquisition and rights of subsequent purchasers — transfer after initiation of acquisition is void against the State; limitations on challenges by subsequent purchasers.	Cited by the respondents (Advocate General) to support propositions about the legal effect of transfers after notification and about who can challenge acquisition; the Court recorded and considered the authority in submissions but the decision primarily rested on irregularity and cessation of public purpose.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court set out its analysis in a sequence of factual and legal observations:

It identified the chronological and legal background: an original Section 4(1) notification in 1975 and a Section 6 declaration in 1978 (partial), followed by judicial review which quashed the Section 6 declaration in 1988 while leaving the 4(1) notification intact.
The Court observed that a subsequent 4(1) notification (G.O.Ms No. 429 dated 13.11.1998) was issued while the earlier 4(1) notification was still in force and during the pendency of related litigation. The Court described the issuance of a successive notification under those circumstances as irregular.
The Court specifically relied on the principle from K. Ponnusamy Gounder (2001 (3) CTC 233) that issuing a successive Section 4(1) notification without withdrawing an earlier notification vitiates acquisition proceedings based on the successive notification; this authority was treated as directly relevant to the legality of the 1998 notification.
The Court examined the asserted public purpose and the implementation record. It noted that land marked in the plan (including the petitioner's portion) had been allocated for bus bays/Chennai Contract Carriage Bus Terminal, but the State had decided to shift the bus terminal to Vandalur. Based on that factual shift, the Court concluded the original purpose for which certain lands were sought no longer existed.
The Court emphasised the prolonged delay: the original notification dated 1975 saw formal plan approval many decades later (the Court observed that the proposal had been pending for 37 years) and the lands had not been deployed for the initially stated scheme. The delay and non-utilisation weighed against sustaining the acquisition.
The Court noted factual indicators of inconsistent governmental conduct: lands acquired at a low compensation rate (Rs. 200/- per sq.ft) were being advertised / sold at substantially higher prices (Rs. 1,220/- per sq.ft), and some tracts were withdrawn from acquisition for administrative/financial reasons (G.O.Ms No. 232 dated 20.09.2002). Such conduct supported the petitioner's contention that the acquisition had not been executed solely for an extant public purpose.
Considering representations, objections and procedural steps (enquiries under Section 5A, Section 3(b), award enquiries under Section 11), the Court found that the cumulative facts — irregular issuance of the 1998 notification while an earlier 4(1) notification was in force, shifting of the public purpose, long delay, and the pattern of withdrawals and disposals — gave sufficient force to the petitioner's contention to quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's lands.
The Court expressly stated that, after weighing the facts, submissions and the cited authorities (including the Ponnusamy decision), it was satisfied there were adequate grounds to declare the impugned notification, declaration and award as no longer operative, illegal and unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner's land.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The Court declared the Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms No. 429 (dated 13.11.1998, published 16.12.1998), the Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms No. 54 (dated 02.02.2000, published 02.02.2000), and the Award dated 05.12.2001 (Award No. 3 of 2001) in respect of the petitioner's lands (Survey Nos. 59/6 and 59/9) to be no longer operative, illegal and unconstitutional.

Direct Consequences for the Parties

The petitioner is at liberty to enjoy the property (i.e., to possess/use the lands in question).
The respondents are at liberty to withdraw any amounts they have deposited in the concerned Civil Court (i.e., withdrawal of compensation deposited due to refusal by petitioners to accept awards).
There is no order as to costs.

Broader Implications

The Court's decision was founded on the particular facts of this case (successive notification issued while earlier notification was in force and under challenge, the absence or cessation of a subsisting public purpose, prolonged delay, and the respondents' actions concerning withdrawals and resale). The opinion records reliance on existing precedents (notably K. Ponnusamy Gounder) and applies legal principles to the facts; it does not purport to lay down a novel legal principle beyond those applications. The opinion does not state that it has set a new, general precedent beyond its specific adjudication on these facts.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

C. Gangarathinam Petitioner v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms No. 429 issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner's land situate in Survey No. 59/6 and 59/9 of an extent of 0.16 1/2 acre and 0.05 3/4 acre respectively in Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.12.1998 and the subsequent Section 6 declaration issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms No. 54 dated 02.02.2000 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 02.02.2000 and the subsequent Award dated 05.12.2001 passed in Award No. 3 of 2001, by the second respondent as no longer operative, illegal and unconstitutional.

ORDER

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The writ petitioner stated that she is the owner of lands, an extent of 0.16 1/2 acre in Survey No. 59/6 and 0.05 3/4 acre in S. No. 59/9 of Koyambedu Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai. She has purchased the said lands under registered sale deed dated 27.04.1989 as per document bearing Nos. 1796 of 89, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Annanagar. The Government of Tamilnadu, in and by its G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing Department, dated 21.04.1975 approved the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of an extent of 85.12 acres of land in Koyambedu Village, including the lands descried supra for “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme” and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21.05.1975 The draft declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was approved in G.O.Ms No. 974, Housing Department, dated 11.05.1978 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 15.05.1978, in respect of an extent of 17.94 acres, excluding an extent of 67.18 acres from land acquisition proceedings. The original owners of the land appeared before the Special Deputy Collector for enquiry under Section 5(a) on 28.06.1999, with reference to notices issued under Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under Section 55(i) of the Land Acquisition Act and presented their objections.

2. The petitioner further stated that originally the entire land was an extent of 1.29 acres as comprised in Survey No. 59/3, Block No. 6, Koyambedu Village. The erstwhile owner of the entire extent of 1.29 acres in Survey No. 59/3 was one N. Manicka Naickar and N. Kuppan. Section 4(1) Notification was issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing dated 21.04.1975 and Section 6 declaration was also issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms No. 974, Housing, dated 11.05.1978, referred to in Survey No. 59/3, owned by the said Manicka Naickar, with an extent of 1.29 acres in Koyambedu Village. The 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21.05.1975 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 15.05.1978 in respect of her land. But the Government, by a Memo, seems to have, at the instance of the third respondent herein, challenged the parties for which the land was sought to be acquired under Section 4(1) Notification and have decided to proceed further with the acquisition for the benefit of locating a Truck Terminal for the third respondent, who is a different requisition authority. Hence, the said original owner, V. Manicka Naickar had filed a writ petition in W.P No. 1570 of 1983, before this Court, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Court, by its order dated 08.01.1988, was pleased to quash the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove her ownership in the enquiry to be held under Section 5(a) of the said Act. He further stated that after the disposal of the writ petition in W.P No. 1570 of 1983, by this Court, the respondents did not take any steps to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in the place of 6 declaration, which was earlier quashed.

3. The writ petitioner further stated that nothing precluded the respondents from issuing such a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, if the lands were really needed for public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) Notification, viz., “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme”. It was under those circumstances that the petitioner purchased the lands in question for valued consideration under a registered sale deed on the bona-fide impression that no further proceedings would be initiated by the respondents and moreover, in the fond hope that the respondents lethargic attitude also resulted in lapsing of Section 4(1) Notification, dated 21.05.1975 in view of the statutory provisions contained under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the respondents allowed the matter to drift indefinitely, the petitioner was under the impression that no further proceedings would be initiated. It was under those circumstances that the petitioner filed writ petition in W.M.P No. 21009 of 1991, before this Court i.e, after a period of three years, since she purchased the lands and also after the earlier Section 6 declaration was quashed by this Court, praying to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(1) Notification issued vide G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing, dated 21.04.1975, in respect of her lands in Survey No. 59/6 and 59/9 of an extent of 0.16 1/2 acre and 0.05 3/4 acre respectively in Koyambedu Village, as no longer operative and quashed. The petitioner further stated that along with her, 5 other adjacent owners of the lands in the same Survey Numbers also filed similar writ petitions and by a common interim order dated 04.10.1991, this Court, in W.M.P No. 21008 to 21013 of 1991 in W.P No. 13957 to 13962 of 1991, passed orders staying the dispossession alone of the petitioners from the lands and allowed other proceedings to go on.

4. The petitioner further stated that on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Tamil Nadu and in the said counter, it was contended, inter-alia, that the declaration proposal was sent to Government for getting approval of the Government, by the Commissioner of Land Administration. However, even in the said counter affidavit, which was filed on 31.05.1993, there was no reference to any fresh declaration. She further stated that while the above batch of writ petitions were pending before this Court, the entire extent of 1.29 acres in Survey No. 59/3, Koyambedu Village was subdivided and patta was also issued to the respective owners including herself. All the 6 petitioners have purchased the lands from N. Manicka Naickar on 27.04.1989 under registered sale deeds. Gangarathinam had purchased, an extent of 0.20 acres; Sudhakar Reddy, had purchased 0.18 acres, Muralikrishna had purchased 0.21 acres, Thulasi had purchased an extent of 0.20 acres, Bhaskar had purchased an extent of 0.20 acres and Thatha Reddy had purchased 0.20 acres. In total, an extent of 1.29 acres had been purchased. The said Thatha Reddy had sold 2500 sq.feet each to Chandrasekar under registered sale deed No. 3961/90, and another to Gangarathinam, by registered sale deed 3962/90 dated 13.08.1990, holding balance of 8 1/2 cents in his name; likewise, one Mr. Bhaskar, having 0.20 cents sold 2500 sq.ft (0.5 3/4 cents) each to Sudhakar Reddy by document No. 3964/90 dated 13.08.1990 and another to Vijayasekar Reddy by document No. 3963/90 dated 13.08.1990, holding balance of 0.8 1/2 cents in his name.

5. The writ petitioner further stated that even while the batch of writ petitions filed by her and 5 others was pending before this Court, challenging the earlier 4(1) notification issued in G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing, dated 21.04.1975, the respondents issued a 4(1) Notification, viz., the impugned 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms No. 429, Housing & Urban Development UD III (V) Department, dated 13.11.1998 for a different public purpose viz., “To wit for the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex developed to de-congest the Madras George Town Area and provide better facilities for public”.

6. She further stated that curiously on 30.11.1998, i.e,. 17 days after the fresh 4(1) notification was issued by the respondents, this Court allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by her and other persons and quashed the earlier 4(1) notification. However, the respondent did not whisper anything at the final hearing of the above writ petition or at least, when the order was passed by this Court on 30.11.1998, about issuance of 4(1) notification dated 13.11.1998, covering the same lands for a different public purpose. Thereafter, when she, along with 5 others came to know about the issuance of a fresh 4(1) Notification for a different public purpose, covering the same lands, she, along with the five other persons filed objections to acquisition before the second respondent herein, i.e, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition, CMDA), contending, inter-alia, that the public purpose mentioned is vague and illusionary and that there was no immediate purpose existing for which the lands were required; that they purchased these lands only to develop their vegetable business, which is a four-generation family business, but subsequent to the purchase in 1989, because of the pendency of the writ petitions from 1991 to 1998, they could not develop the said lands; that the vast extent of acquired lands for Koyambedu vegetable market complex are still remaining idle and undeveloped for two decades; that there was surplus lands even under the earlier acquisition proceedings; that the lands to the south of Koyambedu vegetable market complex were allowed for re-settlement of third parties, contrary to the purpose for which the lands were acquired and also requested the second respondent to exclude their lands from the acquisition proceedings and drop further proceedings.

7. The petitioner further stated that again on 22.10.1999, she, along with five other persons, sent another representation to the second respondent pointing out that the requisitioning authority has not considered their objections or furnished any reason for overruling their objections and explained the actual extent of lands purchased and enjoyed by them and prayed for issuance of necessary errata. Copy of the said representation was also forwarded to the Assistant Collector of Survey and Records, Chennai Collectorate, along with copies of documents for making necessary entries while updating the registry in respect of Survey No. 59/3 of Koyambedu Village. However, there was no response from the second respondent to this representation also. Thereafter, on 25.10.1999, she, along with 5 others sent yet another representation to the second respondent, pointing out that the name of Manicka Naickar, in respect of Survey No. 59/3 of an extent of 33 1/2 cents, has to be deleted as the said Manicka Naickar and his sons had sold an extent of 0.20 acres in favour of one P. Bhaskar and Thatha Reddy and in turn, the said Bhaskar had sold an extent of 0.11 1/2 acres in favour of C. Sudhakar Reddy and Mrs. Gangarathinam and the balance of 0.08 1/2 acres was ear-marked as “passage” exclusively for Sudhakar Reddy and the said Gangarathinam, the purchaser. It was also pointed out in the representation that the other purchaser, Thatha Reddy sold another portion of 0.11 1/2 acres out of 0.20 acres, purchased by him from Manicka Naicker and others, in favour of Vijayasekar Reddy and Chandrasekaran, leaving an extent of 0.08 1/2 of acres as “common passage” for their exclusive use. However, even for this representation, there was no response from the second respondent. On 12.09.2001, on behalf of petitioner and on behalf of five others, an application was sent to the Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai praying to issue patta in respect of the actual extent of lands purchased by each of them.

8. The petitioner further stated that in G.O.Ms No. 395, Housing and Urban Development, UD 3(1) Department dated 25.09.2001, the first respondent issued a fresh 4(1) Notification for acquisition of Survey No. 56/3, an extent of 0.49 1/4 acres belonging to one Thangavelu and others and also Survey No. 56/6 of an extent of 0.80 acres belonging to one Rajasekaran and others. However, within one year, from the issuance of the said 4(1) Notification, the respondents have issued another G.O, for withdrawal of the said lands from acquisition proceedings, by issuing G.O.Ms No. 232, dated 20.09.2002 under Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The above extent of 1.29 1/4 acres in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6, Koyambedu Village are lands lying at the gate way to the proposed scheme. The said lands are adjacent to the road and are in more proximity to all places and also connecting the road and bus stand. Its exclusion from the acquisition proceedings would frustrate the entire scheme. However, the respondents have excluded the said lands and withdrawn the said lands from the acquisition proceedings, while her lands are lying at a corner. He further stated that moreover the public purpose for which the properties are requisitioned has ceased to exist and therefore the respondents are bound to release her lands. Moreover, the respondents are selling the lands acquired for the Koyambedu Vegetable Market complex at the rate of Rs. 1,220/- per sq.ft, as can be seen from their advertisements issued in “Namathu MGR”, a formal daily issue dated 05.09.2002 While the compensation paid by the Government to the petitioner is at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq.ft after acquisition. The respondents themselves are selling the said lands at the rate of Rs. 1,220/- per sq.ft and the very fact that they are selling these lands conclusively establishes her case that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired has not been accomplished and in the said circumstances, the respondents are duty bound to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of her lands. The attitude of the respondents in selling the land is nothing but an attempt to enrich themselves at the cost of the petitioner. There is also an inordinate delay in finalising the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner further stated that the sequence of events narrated above squarely establishes that the issuance of 4(1) Notification and the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act is nothing but a “colourable exercise of power”. While the earlier 4(1) Notification issued by the first respondent in the year 1975 was in force and the same was under challenge before this Court, ignoring the said 4(1) notification and the public purpose mentioned in the said notification, the respondents issued the present impugned 4(1) notification in the year 1998, even during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court mainly after realizing that there is no scope for issuing a section 6 declaration on the basis of the earlier 4(1) Notification issued in the year 1975 in view of statutory bar under the proviso to Section 6 of the said Act, as the said Section 6 declaration would be time-barred. He further stated that by issuing the impugned 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration, the respondents have achieved immediately what they cannot do directly. The conduct of the respondents in issuing a fresh 4(1) Notification (impugned notification) while the earlier 4(1) notification was in force and that too during the pendency of the writ petition challenging the earlier 4(1) Notification, without even informing this Court, either at the time of issuing a fresh notification or at the final hearing is liable to be condemned by this Court. The public purpose, for which the property is requisitioned has ceased to exist and hence, the respondents are bound to release her property. When the public purpose specified in the declaration ceased to exist, there would be no further jurisdiction to continue the proceedings for acquiring in respect of such a non-existing purpose.

9. No other adequate alternate remedy is available in law to canvass the correctness of the 4(1) Notification issued by the first respondent dated 13.11.1998 in G.O.Ms No. 429 and also the declaration issued by the first respondent under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms No. 54, dated 02.02.2002 except to approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence it was prayed before this Court to quash the impugned proceedings.

10. The second respondent/Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) has filed counter statement and resisted the writ petition. The respondent stated that the Chief Executive Officer, who is attached to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has sent requisition for the acquisition of lands measuring an extent of 4.89 acres of wet lands in Survey No. 59/9 etc and dry lands in Survey No. 159/3 etc. of Koyambedu Village for the implementation of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex Scheme. Accordingly, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted to the Government under ordinary clause. The said notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms No. 429.H&UD (UD. III.1) Department, dated 13.03.1998 The notification was published at Pages No. 1 and 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette bearing No. 48A, Part-II, Section 2(Supplement) dated 16.12.1998 and under Clause (C) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authoirty, Chennai-8 was authorized to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The 4(a) Notification was also published in the local dailies “Madurai Mani” and “Kathiravan” on 06.01.1999 and in the locality on 08.02.1999 Necessary errata to the notification was also published in the dailies dated 21.09.1999 in “Madurai Mani” and “Kathiravan”.

11. It is further submitted that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Deputy Collector on 09.07.1999 and 14.07.1999 After observing the usual formalities, according to the Rules framed under Section 55(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, the land owners and interested persons have filed their written objections, objecting the proposed acquisition. The objections were tabulated and communicated to the requisitioning body viz., Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authoirty have offered their remarks in their U.O Note No. K1/2123/94, dated 17.09.1999 stating that the lands were required by them for the purpose of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex Scheme and the objections may be overruled. The remarks of the requisitioning body was again communicated to the concerned land owners and interested persons, who have filed objections at the time of enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, enquiry under Section 3(b) of the Act was also conducted on 22.10.1999, to hear further views on the remarks of the C.M.D.A Some of them filed their further objections. All the objections raised by the land owners and interested persons, on the remarks of C.M.D.A were considered thoroughly and it was finally decided to drop the objections of the land owners and interested persons and it was decided to recommend to the Government to approve the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, overruling the objectors, since the objections are routine and general in nature.

12. It is further submitted that the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer, overruling the objections, were communicated to the land owners and interested persons. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act for the notified extent of 4.89 acres was approved by the Government, vide their G.O.Ms No. 54, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.02.2000 It was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 79, Part-II, Section-2, at page No. 1 and 2, dated 02.02.2000 and in the Tamil Dailies of “Malai Malar” on 05.02.2000, “Madurai Mani” on 06.02.2000 It was also published in the locality on 07.02.2000 It is further submitted that as per the powers conferred in G.O.Ms No. 546, Revenue Department, dated 05.09.1994, the Collector of Chennai has approved the draft declaration under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Special Deputy Collector (LA, C.M.D.A Chennai-8) was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer to perform the functioning of the collector in the said notification. The area, as computed in the survey has been mentioned in the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. There was no objections either to the measurement or the area adopted for the fields.

13. It is further submitted that the area of the fields under acquisition as determined after the survey is adopted as true and correct area of lands under acquisition. After promulgation, the notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act and after causing service of the individual notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, as prescribed under Rules, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), C.M.D.A, Chennai-8 has conducted award enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.09.2001 and 28.09.2001 The award enquiry was completed on 10.10.2001 It is submitted that C. Sudhakar Reddy has appeared for the award enquiry for the property owned by him and on behalf of other writ petitioners viz., Mrs. Ganga Rathinam, Thiru Muralikrishna, Thiru. Vijayasekar, Thiru Chandrasekar and M/s. Thulasi. During the award enquiry, the writ petitioners claimed the compensation based on the sale deeds and they refused to receive the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the lands acquired to the survey numbers noted supra. Further, the plea of the petitioners are one and the same. The Chief Executive Officer, CMDA has sent a requisition letter for the acquisition of lands measuring an extent of 4.89 acres in Survey Nos. 59/5, 59/6, 59/7, 59/8 to 59/14, 63/1A, 63/5, 63/6 to 63/12, 159/3, 159/4, 160/3B2, 160/3D1B, 160/3E1, 160/3E2, 160/3E3, 186/1, 186/2 and 198/1A1A1B2 of Koyambedu Village to wit for the purpose of implementation of Koyambedu whole sale market complex scheme. After the lands were inspected by the Special Deputy Collector, the proposals were sent to Government for notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Government in turn approved the notification in their G.O.Ms No. 429.H&UD/U.D III(1), 13.11.1998 The said notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the dailies and also in the localities. In the said notification, the petitioner's land in Survey No. 59/6 and S. No. 59/9 was also included. Due to some discrepancies of the extent between the patta issued by the revenue authorities and in the documents, the compensation was awarded to the actual extent, as per the patta issued by the authorities. The petitioner attended for award enquiry and they claimed compensation with reference to the documents also pertaining to their lands and they refused to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the compensation was ordered to be kept under civil Court deposit.

14. It is further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner is not acceptable. The lands lying in survey numbers owned by the writ petitioner, was acquired for the public purpose of formation of Koyambedu Wholesale Market scheme to de-congest the park town area and the acquired lands utilized for public purpose. The contentions of the petitioner does not deserve consideration. The objection of the writ petitioner at the time of 5-A enquiry was forwarded to the requisitioning body and the requisitioning body sent their remarks on her objections stating that the lands notified in the notification are essentially and completely required for the purpose of formation of “Koyambedu Whole Sale Market Scheme” to de-congest the park town area. The requisitioning body required the entire extent of land situated in the writ petitioners land for the public purpose of formation of Koyambedu whole sale market scheme to de-congest the park town area. When the requisitioning body needs the notified extent of lands for their purpose, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to exclude the writ petitioners lands from the acquisition proceedings. In G.O.Ms No. 395, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.09.2001, the notification was approved by the Government for an extent of 4.10 1/4 acres for the purpose of Koyambedu Whole Sale Market Complex Scheme. While 5-A enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owner of the land in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6 have strongly objected to the acquisition and filed her written representation. First of all, the requisitioning body overruled the objection filed by the owner, communicated by the acquisition officer. At the time of calling remarks of the land owners in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6, during 3(b) enquiry, the objections were sent to the requisitioning body for their further views on the objections of the land owners. At that time, the requisitioning body in its resolution in A.R No. 137/2002, dated 08.08.2002, resolved after a detailed deliberation, the authority felt that the land acquisition costs in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6, measuring 1.29 acres is too high and the authority has already acquired sufficient lands and it can be utilized without acquiring this piece of land which lies in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6. Further, with their views stating that if the High Court orders higher price for L.A.O.P cases, it will adversely affect the finance of C.M.D.A Therefore, the authority resolved not to acquire the land in Survey Nos. 56/3 and 56/6, measuring an extent of 1.29 1/4 acres. On the decision of the requisitioning body, the withdrawal proposal was sent to Government and approved in G.O.Ms No. 232, Housing & Urban Development Department, dated 20.09.2002 Once, the requisitioning body does not require such a land, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the decision of the requisitioning body.

15. The second respondent further stated that it is informed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 13.11.1998 and it was published in the locality on 08.02.1999 Within the statutory period of one year from the date of publications of notification in the locality, the draft declaration under Section 6 was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms No. 54, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.02.2000 and within the allowable time as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. The award was approved by the authority concerned on 05.12.2001 and pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14.12.2001 The Chief Executive Officer has sent requisition for the acquisition of land measuring an extent of 7.70 acres of wet and dry lands comprised in Survey No. 59/3 etc., of Koyambedu Village. Out of the requisition given for acquisition, an extent of 2.81 acres, comprised in Survey Nos. 63/1B, 163/2, 159/6, 199/2A, stands registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The lands requisitioned for acquisition by the Chief Executive Officer, M.M.D.A, were earlier notified for acquisition by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras for Koyambedu wholesale market complex. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Government. At this stage, the land owners filed a case challenging the acquisition. The High Court, in its judgment dated 08.01.1988, have quashed the draft declaration, keeping the 4(1) Notification intact. The Government examined the issue and have directed in their letter No. 87986.A/LA (2-89), Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.05.1995 have asked to send fresh 4(1) notification, proposals in all similar cases, wherein draft declaration under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed by the High Court, Madras, keeping the 4(1) notification intact. The Government, in their letter No. 87906.LA.1(2)(a)/89-2, dated 25.09.1994, addressed to the Member Secretary, CMDA had instructed him to send fresh 4(1) notification proposals. Accordingly, the proposal for an extent of 4.89 acres except the lands situated in Survey No. 63/1B, and noted above were sent and proposals approved.

16. The second respondent further stated that the earlier 4(1) notification which was challenged by the land owners was ordered by the Court intact and the 6 declaration was alone quashed. As per the instruction of the Government to send fresh 4(1) proposals, the proposals for an extent of 4.89 acres were sent by excluding the lands to an extent of 2.81 acres for which the patta was held in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The original proposal for the acquisition of lands, measuring an extent of 7.70 acres was sent to the Government. Consequent of challenging the acquisition by the land owners in the High Court, the High Court ordered to quash the 6 declaration keeping the 4(1) notification intact. The fresh notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms No. 429, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 13.11.1998 It was published in the locality on 08.02.1999 By observing the Rules framed under the Act; the 6 declaration proposal sent by the Land Acquisition Officer was also approved in G.O.Ms No. 54, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 02.02.2000 The objection of the writ petitioners were overruled and the award was passed on 14.12.2001 Because of the refusal of the writ petitioners to receive the compensation and the dispute of ownership, the compensation amount was ordered to be kept under civil Court deposit.

17. The second respondent further submitted that subsequent to the G.O.Ms No. 232, Housing and Urban Development 3(i) Department, dated 20.09.2002, the lands lying in Survey Nos. 56/3 and 56/6 have been withdrawn as the requisitioning body, viz., C.M.D.A itself does not require the extent which lies in Survey Nos. 56/3 and 56/6 stating the reasons as stated in the earlier paragraphs. In view of the circumstances, it is informed that the writ petitioner had purposely objected to the acquisition proceedings, which had been proposed for a Noble Public Cause. The possession of the fields, which are adjacent to the writ petitioner's lands have been taken possession and the implementation of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex has been struck down, consequent of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition.

18. The third respondent's counsel has filed the gist of the case along with typed set of papers. The learned counsel has submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing Department dated 21.04.1975 for requisition of land in Survey No. 59/3 of Koyambedu Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam, Taluk for ‘West Madras Neighborhood Land Development Scheme’. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 15.05.1978 It was submitted that the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P No. 1569 of 1983 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.01.1988 quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, with liberty to proceed in the matter. It was submitted that the 4(1) Notification itself was quashed on 14.09.1993 in W.P Nos. 13571 and 13575 of 1991, by His Lordship. Justice K. Venkatasamy.

19. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Government again decided to acquire the land in Survey No. 59/9 and 159/3 of Koyambedu Village for the implementation of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex (KWMC) and issued 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms No. 429, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 13.11.1998, which was also published in local dailies “Madurai Mani” and “Kathiravan” on 06.01.1999 and also in the locality on 08.02.1999 Subsequent to this, the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Deputy Collector on 09.07.1999 to 14.07.1999 The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners participated in the 5(A) enquiry and filed their written objections which was communicated to the requisitioning body, viz., the CMDA. The CMDA has offered remarks on 17.09.1999 stating that the lands were required by them and that the objections may be overruled.

20. The learned counsel further submits that a further enquiry under Section 3(b) of the Act was also conducted on 22.10.1999 to hear further views on the remarks of the C.M.D.A Subsequent to this, Section 6 declaration of the Land Acquisition Act was notified under G.O.Ms No. 54, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 02.02.2000 and it was also published in the Court Gazette No. 79, on 02.02.2000 and also published in the dailies Malai Malar and “Madurai Mani”. It was submitted that the direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms No. 546, Revenue dated 05.09.1994

21. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) CMDA conducted award enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.08.2001, 28.08.2001 and 29.08.2001 and it was completed on 10.10.2001 The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners claimed the compensation based on the sale deeds and refused to receive the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired. Consequent to this, the award was passed on 14.12.2001 but the petitioners refused to receive the compensation and as such, the compensation was kept in City Civil Court deposit. The learned counsel further submitted that the possession was taken over by CMDA, who put a compound wall covering the land in question and the other lands acquired by the C.M.D.A The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and the Hon'ble Justice N. Kannadasan, passed an order dated 30.04.2004, directing the C.M.D.A to put up a gate with a lock and key and hand over one key to the petitioner and as such, it is evident that the respondent C.M.D.A is in possession of the land. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had followed the procedures laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquired the land and as such, the petitioners contention do not have any merits. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

22. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the impugned 4(1) notification issued by the first respondent is vitiated in that the same was issued on 13.11.1998 even while the earlier 4(1) Notification issued by the first respondent dated 21.04.1975 in G.O.Ms No. 105, covering the same lands was in force. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions cited a judgment reported in 2001 (3) CTC 233, K. Ponnusamy Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been ruled that the successive notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, without withdrawing the earlier notification is not a valid one and would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings based on the earlier notification. The learned counsel further contended that the earlier notification was issued on 21.04.1975 and the same was under challenge before this Court in a batch of writ petitions and this Court quashed the said 4(1) Notification only on 30.11.1998 However, the impugned 4(1) Notification was issued 17 days prior to the order passed by this Court on 13.11.1998 i.e, even while the earlier 4(1) Notification was in force and in existence and hence the issuance of the second notification is totally without jurisdiction in as much as on the date when the present 4(1) Notification was issued on 13.11.1998, the earlier 4(1) Notification was not withdrawn and it was under challenge before this Court.

23. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the issuance of 4(1) Notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are nothing but a ‘colourable exercise of power’. It is submitted that the respondents issued a present impugned 4(1) Notification in the year 1998 during the pendency of the writ petition, challenging the earlier 4(1) Notification, after realizing that there was no scope for issuing a fresh Section 6 declaration, on the basis of the earlier 4(1) Notification issued in the year 1975 in view of the statutory power under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, as any such declaration would be time barred. It is to get over the said statutory law that the respondents had issued the present 4(1) Notification and this would only mean that the respondents are trying to achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly. The learned counsel further argued that public purpose for which the property has been requisitioned has ceased to exist and hence, the respondents are bound to release the lands and there is absolutely no justification to confirm the proceedings. Through G.O.Ms No. 232, Housing & Urban Development Department, dated 20.09.2002, the first respondent has withdrawn from acquisition of an extent of 1.29 1/4 acres of land in Survey No. 56/3 and 56/6 by invoking Section 48 of the Act. The said lands are adjacent to the road and are in more proximity to all places and also connecting the road and the bus stand. The respondents have also advertised for sale of lands already acquired for Koyambedu Vegetable Market Complex at the rate of Rs. 1,220/- per sq.ft and this is also a clear evidence to show that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired had not been accomplished. The respondents intention is to enrich themselves at the cost of the petitioner by continuing the acquisition proceedings.

24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that preliminary investigation is necessary before issuance of a notification under Section 4(1). The object of Section 4(1) Notification is to give clear notice to the owner of the proposed acquisition. In the present case, in respect of petitioner's lands, Section 4(1) Notification was originally issued on 21.04.1975 followed by declaration under Section 6 on 11.05.1978 and the public purpose notified in Section 4(1) and Section 6 was for “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme”. The said 4(1) Notification was neither rescinded nor withdrawn under Section 48(1) of the act. Further, the learned counsel contended that the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated since the public purpose specified in 4(1) Notification has ceased to exist. The learned counsel cited a judgment reported in AIR 1989, Bombay 156 at 159, wherein it has been expressed that when the public purpose specified in the declaration ceased to exist, there would be no further jurisdiction to continue the proceedings for acquiring for any non existent purpose. The learned counsel further contended that the requisitioning body viz., CMDA has not given any valid reasons for overruling the objection of the petitioner. The learned counsel cited another judgment of this Court, which is reported in 1977 Vol (II) CTC 213, Tube Supplies v. Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been expressed that unless a requisitioning body offers remarks with reason, it would not be possible for land owners to make further representations during Section 5(A) enquiry and that Section 5(A) enquiry held without obtaining a reasoned report from the requisitioning body as to land owners objections is invalid and illegal. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent herein has failed to refer to or to deal with the various representations sent by the petitioner pointing out the errors and mis-description of material particulars in the notification. In spite of that the second respondent has failed to afford any opportunity in this regard and make necessary corrections. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel has cited a judgment supporting his contentions which is reported in 2000 (IV) CTC, 125, Asiya Mariyan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, wherein it has been expressed that the entire proceedings have to be quashed.

25. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his arguments has cited the following judgments:-

(i) S. Anjuman Ahmediyya, Muslim Mission v. State reported in AIR 1980 ANDHRA PRADESH 246

“(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 4, 6, 48 and 55 - General Clauses Act (1897), S.21 - Withdrawal from acquisition - It must be by means of Notification in Gazette (Andhra Pradesh Rules in G.O.Ms Nos. 2110, Revenue (I.L.I) D/-14-10-1959 R.5).

By virtue of S.48 it is open to the Government except in a case governed by S.36 to withdraw from acquisition of the land of which possession has not been taken. Section 48 does not provide for the manner in which such withdrawal can be made. Rule 5 framed under S.55 lays down the procedure. It is clear from this rule that if the Government decides to withdraw from such acquisition, it must be by means of a notification published by the Government. Where though a notification for withdrawal was sent to Government but it was not approved and there was no publication of notification there could be no withdrawal of land from acquisition. AIR 1946 Mad 450, relied on.”

(ii) U.P JAL NIGAM v. KALRA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124

“(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 4, 6, 28 - Subsequent purchaser's right to claim compensation - Alienation of land subsequent to notification under S.4(1) - Sale is void against the State - Purchaser does not acquire any right, title or interest in the land - He cannot challenge validity of notification or regularity in taking possession of land before publication of declaration under S.6 - However, he is entitled to step into the shoes of the owner and claim compensation according to the provisions of the Act.”

(iii) MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1997) 1 SCC 15

“(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.23(1) and 11(1) - Compensation - Market value of the land has to be fixed with reference to date of publication of notification under S.4(1), irrespective of the dates on which declaration under S.6 or award under S.11 made or possession taken under S.16-Provision not liable to be challenged on ground of being not in conformity with Article 31(2) (as stood prior to its deletion) - Art.31-A is attracted where land acquired for agrarian reforms and development and not for development of a city (Delhi) - Hence the argument based on second proviso to Art. 31-A that the land belonging to a small agriculturist within ceiling limit cannot be acquired or the value of the land of the agriculturists sought to be acquired should be determined on the price/value prevailing on the date of award or taking of possession and not on the value prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4(1) cannot be accepted - Constitution of India, Art.31-A.”

(iv) Pappanna v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1998 Writ L.R 563

“Constitution of India, Art.226.Stay, Land Acquisition Act, Ss.4, 6 and 18-Award passed when stay order granted by High Court in writ petition was in force-Proceedings quashed.”

(v) Ponnuswamy Gounder, K. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2001 (3) CTC 233

“Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1) - Issue of Successive notification - validity - Successive notification issued under Section 4(1) without withdrawing earlier notification vitiates Land Acquisition Proceedings - Such successive notification is illegal and invalid.”

The learned counsel has further narrated the dates and events of the case. It was submitted that on 21.04.1975, the respondent issued Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing Department, dated 21.04.1975, issued for “Mid West Madras Neighborhood Land Development Scheme” for acquiring the land, an extent of 85.12 acres. Subsequently, on 11.05.1978, Section 6 declaration was made in G.O.Ms No. 974, Housing for “Mid West Neighborhood Land Development Scheme” for a total area of 17.94 acres, excluding 67.18 acres out of 85.12 acres. The Section 6 declaration was challenged in writ petition Nos. 1569 and 1570 of 1983, by erstwhile owner Manicka Naicker. In those writ petitions, this Court granted interim stay. The learned counsel further narrated that as per the Land Acquisition Act, (Amendment) 1984, it has come into force that any 6 declaration should be made within one year from the date of 4(1) Notification and that the award should be made within two years from the date of declaration. This was not done in the instant case. The writ petition Nos. 1569 and 1570 of 1983 have been allowed and the Section 6 declaration was quashed leaving Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms No. 105, Housing Department, dated 21.04.1975, intact. The learned counsel further narrated that Section 4(1) Notification was published in the gazette on 16.12.1998 and 5(A) enquiry was conducted on 28.06.1999 and objection was also filed by the petitioner. Section 6 declaration was published in the gazette on 02.02.2000 As such, the declaration has not been made within one year from the date of 4(1) Notification.

26. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tahsildar had issued patta in favour of the petitioner on 12.09.2001 and as such, the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and the acquisition proceeded cannot be operated over the said property.

27. The learned Advocate General appearing for the third respondent vehemently argued that the land has been acquired for the implementation of “Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex Scheme” for which the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA has sent necessary requisition for the acquisition of lands measuring an extent of 4.89 acres of wet lands in Survey Nos. 59/9 etc and dry lands in Survey No. 159/3 etc. Accordingly, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted to the Government. The Government has approved the notification in G.O.Ms No. 429, dated 13.11.1998 The notification has also been published in the Government Gazette. Further, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA was authorized to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the 5(A) enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector on 09.07.1999 and 14.07.1999 The land owners and interested persons have filed their written objections. The same was communicated to the requisitioning body viz., CMDA. In turn, they offered their remarks and subsequently, the objections were overruled. The highly competent Advocate General further contended that the enquiry was conducted under Section 3(b) of the Act on 22.10.1999 to hear further views on the remarks of the CMDA. Some of the land owners filed their objections. All the objections of the land owners and interested persons of the lands were considered thoroughly and finally it was decided to drop the objections of the land owners and interested persons and it was decided to recommend to the Government to approve the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the objections were overruled.

28. The learned Advocate General further contended that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act for the notified extent of 4.89 acres was approved by the Government vide their G.O.Ms No. 54, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.02.2000 The same was published in the Government Gazette as well as newspapers. The acquired area as computed in the survey has been mentioned in the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. There was no objections either to the measurement or area adopted for the fields. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the area of the fields under acquisition determined after the survey was adopted as true and correct area of the lands under acquisition. After promulgation, the notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and after causing service of the individual notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, as prescribed under Rules, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, who is attached to the CMDA has conducted award enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.08.2001, 28.08.2001 and 29.08.2001 and the award enquiry was completed on 10.10.2001

29. The learned Advocate General further submitted that Mr. Sudhakar Reddy has appeared for the award enquiry for the property owned by him and on behalf of other writ petitioners viz., Gangarathinam, Muralikrishna, Vijayasekar, Chandrasekar and Thulasi. During award enquiry, the writ petitioners claimed the compensation based on the sale deeds and they refused to receive the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the lands acquired in Survey numbers noted supra. The petitioners have not objected to the land acquisition proceedings for acquiring it for public purpose but they sought adequate compensation as per their sale deeds respectively. The learned Advocate General further submitted that all the legal formalities had been strictly adhered to for acquiring the land and as such, the Chief Executive Officer, C.M.D.A had sent a requisition letter for the acquisition of lands of Koyambedu Village to Wit for the purpose of implementation of “Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex Scheme”. The lands were inspected by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. Thereafter, the proposals were sent to the Government for approval. After approval, the notification was published in the gazette as well as dailies. In the said notification, the petitioner's lands in Survey No. 59/6 and S. No. 59/9 of Koyambedu Village are also included.

30. The learned Advocate General further submitted that due to some discrepancies of the extent between the patta issued by the revenue authorities and in the documents, the compensation was awarded to the actual extent as per the patta issued by the authorities. The petitioners attended the award enquiry and they claimed compensation with reference to the documents viz., sale deeds pertaining to the lands and they refused to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the compensation amount has been kept under Civil Court deposit. The petitioner's land was acquired for the public purpose of formation of “Koyambedu Wholesale Market Scheme to de-congest the park town area and the acquired lands are utilized for the public purpose.

31. The learned Advocate General further contended that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 13.11.1998 and it was published in the locality on 08.02.1999 Within the statutory period of one year, from the date of publication of notification in the locality, the draft declaration under Section 6 was approved by the Government on 02.02.2000 The award was approved by the authority on 05.12.2001 and pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14.12.2001 The Chief Executive Officer, CMDA has sent necessary requisition for the acquisition of land measuring an extent of 7.70 acres of wet and dry lands comprised in Survey Nos. 59/3 etc., of Koyambedu Village. Out of the requisition given for acquisition, an extent of 2.81 acres, comprised in Survey Nos. 63/1B, 163/2, 159/6, 199/2A, stands registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The lands requisitioned for acquisition by the Chief Executive Officer were earlier notified for acquisition by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Government and at this stage the land owners filed a case challenging the acquisition. The learned Advocate General further contended that the proposals are for an extent of 2.81 acres, for which pattas are held in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Originally, the proposals for acquisition of lands, measuring an extent of 7.70 acres was sent to the Government. Consequent of challenging the acquisition by the land owners in the High Court, the High Court ordered to quash the 6 declaration and keeping the 4(1) Notification intact. With reference to the instruction of Government, a fresh notification proposal for acquisition of an extent of 4.89 acres alone were sent.

32. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land is for a noble public cause and the possession of the fields, which are adjacent to the writ petitioners land have already been taken. Further, the learned Advocate General contended that the writ petitioners lands is absolutely necessary for the public purpose envisioned by the Government and necessary developments are going on in the said land.

33. The learned Advocate General further contended that the Chief Planner, who is attached to the CMDA prepared a plan to occupy the writ petitioners lands along with other properties. This land has been allotted for construction of Chennai Contract Carriage Bus Terminal for CMDA at Koyambedu. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate General has submitted an approved plan, wherein it is seen that the green portion highlighted in the map belongs to the writ petitioner. It was submitted that the process of construction is going on in a speedy manner to facilitate use by the public. The learned Advocate General has cited the below mentioned judgments in support of his contentions:-

MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177

“A. Land Acquisition and Requisition - Challenge to acquisition proceedings by subsequent purchaser - Held, impermissible

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S.48-Compensation for incomplete acquisition - Claim of compensation under S.48 of LA Act, by subsequent purchaser, held impermissible.

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4 & 6 - Transfer of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated - Held, is void and would not bind the Government.”

34. After going through the discussions, this Court is of the view that:-

(i) The first 4(1) Notification was issued on 21.04.1975 for acquiring the land, an extent of 85.12 acres for “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme”. This is the original purpose for which the notification was issued. Subsequently, the respondent has excluded acquisition of 67.18 acres from the original proposals, as per G.O.Ms No. 974, Housing Department, dated 11.05.1978 However, it is seen that no valid explanations had been given to explain the reasons for non acquisition of lands of an extent of 67.18 acres, more so as the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA, in the first instance had formulated the plan of acquisition, only after well considering and after fully analyzing the various matters and computed the extent of land, required for the purpose of such acquisition and subsequently the Government had approved the same.

(ii) The 4(1) Notification dated 21.04.1975 was in force and the same was challenged by way of writ proceedings. During the pendency of writ proceedings, the second 4(1) Notification had been issued by the respondents, which is irregular. In a similar case as reported in 2001 (3) CTC 233, K. Ponnusamy Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, it is seen that this Court had observed that the successive notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, without withdrawing the earlier notification is not a valid one and would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings based on the successive notification.

(iii) As per plan submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent, it is seen from the highlighted portion marked in green that the said marked property and adjacent properties have been allotted for bus bays for Chennai Contract Carriage Bus Terminal at Koyambedu for CMDA. Now, the State Government has decided to shift the bus terminal from Koyambedu to Vandalur in order to facilitate improved traffic regulation and as such the original purpose for which the same lands had been sought for is no more in existence.

(iv) Originally the 4(1) Notification was issued in the year 1975, but the plan was approved only on 30.08.2012 This Court fails to understand as to how the lands, have so far, not been utilized for the said purpose considering that the proposal has been pending for 37 years.

(v) It is seen from the affidavit of the petitioner that the respondent acquired the land at a cost of Rs. 200/- per sq ft and the said land had been reallotted to the beneficiaries by selling the said land at the rate of Rs. 1,220/- per Sq.ft The writ petitioner is also a private individual and it is seen that he is occupying a small portion of the land. As per the Urban Development Ceiling Act, she does not have surplus lands for the Government to effect such taking over of her land.

35. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the submissions made by the learned Advocate General for the third respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and on perusing the written averments of all the parties, and on scrutinizing of citations marked by the learned counsels and this Court's view listed above as (i) to (v), this Court finds that there is enough force in the petitioner's contentions to quash the respondents acquisition proceedings.

36. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, this Court declares the 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms No. 429 issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner's land situated in Survey No. 59/6 and S. No. 59/9 of an extent of 0.16 1/2 acre and 0.05 3/4 acre respectively in Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.12.1998 and the subsequent Section 6 declaration issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms No. 54 dated 02.02.2000 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 02.02.2000 and the subsequent Award dated 05.12.2001 passed in Award No. 3 of 2001, by the second respondent as no longer operative as it is illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to enjoy his property and the respondents are at liberty to withdraw their deposited amount lying in the concerned Civil Court. There is no order as to costs.

C. Gangarathinam Pet... v. The State Of Tamil N...