AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notification, issued u/s 4(1)
of Land Acquisition Act dated 24.11.2010, as also notification issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 15.12.2010 with consequential
relief of prohibition, restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, bearing
Old Door No. 4/13, New No. 25, Davidson Street, George Town, Chennai-600 001. The petitioners purchased the property under acquisition
from the legal heirs of late S.K.Asan by way of registered sale deed dated 09.09.2010, registered vide Doc.No.1104 of 2010 with the Sub
Registrar, Sow carpet. The patta of the land was also granted in favour of the petitioners on 04.10.2010. The planning permission of construction
was also granted to the petitioners on 10.11.2010, wherein the petitioners started construction.
The case of the petitioners is that, while the petitioners were raising construction, they came to know that the land was under acquisition, on
enquiry, it was revealed that notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued by the Government for acquiring the land for Metro Rail
project. Name of a dead person, who had died in the year 2000, was shown as the owner. The Government also invoked urgency clause, to
dispense with the objection u/s 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The ground of challenge is that the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated, as the land was shown under the ownership of a dead person and
further that though the land recorded in name of the petitioners before issue of notification u/s 4, but the notification did not show the petitioners as
owners.
It is also submission of the petitioners that so far, Chennai Metro Rail project is moving at snail speed, therefore, invoking of urgency clause was
not justified, and
That no personal notice was given to the persons interested, therefore the whole proceedings are void ab initio.
In support of challenge to invoking of urgency provisions, Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in Devender Kumar Tyagi and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 9 SCC 164, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was
pleased to lay down, that acquisition of land for public purpose by itself does not justify exercise of power of dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A
under Sections 17(1) & (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that certain schemes or projects, which
contemplate development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas, by their intrinsic nature and character require investment,
therefore, land acquisition for public purpose by itself does not justify invoking of urgency clause.
There can be no dispute with the proposition that mere public purpose cannot be ground for invoking urgency clause, as the acquisition under
the Land Acquisition Act can only be for public purpose, which also stipulates hearing of objections, u/s 5-A, but at the same time, it is also to be
noticed that in a given case, keeping in view the urgency, the right of the Government to invoke urgency clause cannot be taken away, or
acquisition proceedings quashed in all the cases, where urgency provisions are invoked.
It was in the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, held that
invoking of urgency clause was not justified, therefore, this judgment has no application to the facts of this case.
Reliance was thereafter placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in J&K Housing
Board and another vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others, (2011) 10 SCC 714, laying down that the procedure provided u/s 4(1)(a), (b)
and (c), is mandatory, which has to be strictly complied with.
The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore was, that once notice u/s 4 was not issued to the petitioners, as name of a
dead person was recorded, it is sufficient to hold that the impugned notifications were liable to be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1720 of 2007, (P.M.Meeran vs. The
District Collector, Madurai District & another), decided on 11.06.2008, CDJ 2008 MHC 3113, wherein it has been held as under:
On the facts of the present case, in Form-I, the acquisition authority has included two of the legal heirs. However, he has failed to include them
in Form II viz., final notice given u/s 4(1) of the Act but has chosen to implead the legal heirs in Form III. Therefore, it is a clear case wherein the
factum of the death of the original owner was within the knowledge of the acquisition authority, which certainly vitiates the proceedings.
This judgment is again of no help, as admittedly the respondents were not aware of the death of the real owner, as the land was never entered
in the name of legal heirs, i.e. vendors of the petitioners.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3958 of
2002 (The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary and Commissioner & anr vs. P.Pushpam & others), decided on 11.08.2006, CDJ 2006
MHC 2027, wherein the acquisition showing the name of dead person in notice was ordered to be quashed. This judgment again is of no help, as
on the date of notifications u/s 4, the name of dead person was shown in revenue record.
This writ petition is opposed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent, by contending that notification under
Sections 4 & 6 was issued taking the entries in Revenue records, wherein name of the legal heirs, deceased or the petitioners was not depicted.
The contention of the learned senior counsel, therefore, was that though it cannot be disputed, that the provisions of Section 4 are mandatory in
nature, but at the same time, the object is to give notice to the parties. In the case in hand, once urgency provisions were invoked and the fact that
the award has already been announced, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this stage, as the land now vests
with the State Government free from all encumbrances.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition CMDA vs. J. Sivaprakasam and others, (2011) 1 MLJ 788 (SC), wherein it has been laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, that
if the contention that Section 4 was in violation of statutory provisions of Section 4(1), is rebutted, by acquiring authority by placing evidence to
show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act), the acquisition will not
be vitiated on the ground of violation of Section 4-A of the Act. In the case in hand, no prejudice is caused to petitioners in view of the fact that
urgency provisions were invoked, thereby taking away right to file objections.
The petitioners have also not placed on record any document, showing that the Revenue record was changed in the name of petitioners, except
showing grant of patta in their names, that too, in the month of November immediately when acquisition proceedings were started.
this Court in W.P. No. 20769 of 2010 (B.M. Purnachandran vs. The Secretary to Govt. and others), decided on 24.01.2011, upheld
invoking of urgency clause, by the State, for acquiring the land for Metro Rail Project, as the project is of urgent nature, and file relating to
acquisition showed that the urgency provisions were rightly invoked.
The file produced by the respondents shows, that the question of urgency was considered before issuing notification u/s 4.
Once it is not shown that there is any prejudice caused to the petitioners, and the right of acquisition by invoking urgency provisions for Metro
Rail projects already stands upheld and further keeping in view the fact, that award was passed prior to filing of this writ petition, the petitioners do
not have locus standi to challenge the acquisition at this stage.
No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.