Periya Munisamy and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

K. Sampath, J.—The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the land acquisition proceedings

in G.O. Ms. No. 1696 of Social Welfare Department, dated. 14.9.1987 and quash the proceedings of the first respondent insofar as the

petitioners lands are concerned in respect to Survey No. 141 of an extent of 1.60 acres in Hosur Village and Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

The matter relates to land acquisition proceedings. The details necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under:

The petitioner are owners of lands in S. No. 141 of an extent of 1.60 acres in Hosur Village, Dharmapuri District. They purchased the lands in

question in the year 1976 from one Papamma under Registered Sale deed. A notification u/s 4(1) in G.O. Ms. No. 2072, Social Welfare

Department was issued on 7.8.1986 and published in the Government Gazette on 3.9.1986. Section 6 declaration was issued in G.O. Ms. No.

1696, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.9.1987 and published in the Gazette on 19.9.1987. The proceedings were for the purpose of

providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars of the Village. Notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act was issued on 10.8.1987. The enquiry was

fixed on 16.9.1988. The petitioners came to know about the land acquisition proceedings only from the notice received by them in respect of

enquiry under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. The petitioners know only Telugu and they did not know about the proceedings earlier. After

coming to know of the proceedings they filed the present writ petition and the writ petition was admitted on 28.9.1988 and interim stay in W.M.P.

No. 16716 of 1988 was also granted on the same day. However the stay order was not communicated to the respondents, with the result award

came to be passed on 30.9.1988.

Apart from the above facts the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners also brings to the notice of the court that there had been a delay of one

year between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. It is not necessary to go into the details in view of the fact that the award had

been passed when this Court had granted stay of further proceedings. If the award had not been passed, in view of the decision of Supreme Court

reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and Others, , the proceedings have to be quashed and the respondents have to

proceed only under Act of 31 of 1978. In Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghonathji Maharaj, , the Supreme Court considered a situation where the

proceedings continued after the High Court had granted stay as the Subordinate Court had not known about the said order. The Supreme Court

held that:

Though the court which is carrying on execution is not deprived of the jurisdiction the moment a stay order is passed, even though it has no

knowledge of it, this does not mean that when the court gets knowledge of it, it is powerless to undo any possible injustice that might have been

caused to the party in whose favour the stay order was passed during the period till the court has knowledge of the stay order. We are of the

opinion that Section 151 of the CPC would always be available to the court executing the decree, for in such a case, when the stay order is

brought to its notice, it can always act u/s 151, C.P.C. and set aside the steps taken, between the time the stay order was passed and the time it

was brought to the notice, if that is necessary in the ends of justice and the party concerned asks it to do so. Though, therefore, the court executing

the decree cannot in our opinion be deprived 6f its jurisdiction to carry on execution till it has knowledge of the stay order, the court has the power

in our view to set aside the proceedings taken between the time when the stay order was passed and the time when it was brought to its notice, if it

is asked to do so and it considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice that the interim proceedings should be set aside. But that can only be

done by the court which has taken the interim proceedings in the interest of justice u/s 151 of the CPC provided the order is brought to its

knowledge and a prayer is made to set aside the interim proceedings within a reasonable time. Otherwise the interim proceedings in our opinion

are not a nullity and in the absence of such exercise of power by the court executing the decree u/s 151, they remain good for all purposes.

In Palaniswamy Chettiar v. Jeevarathinammal 1976 T.N.L.J. 150, Paul, J. has opined that u/s 151, C.P.C. the court in those circumstances should

set aside the proceedings taken between the time when the stay was passed and the time when it is brought to the notice of the court if it is asked

to do so and it is considered that it is necessary in the interest of justice, that the interim proceedings should be set aside. In Ramdas v.

Paramasivam Pillai (1989) 1 L.W. 288, Nainar Sundaram, J. as he then was adverted to the above two decisions but on facts distinguished the

judgment of Paul, J. in Palaniswamy Chettiar v. Jeevarathinammal 1976 T.N.L.J. 150. In the case before the learned Judge though interim stay

was initially granted subsequently it was vacated.

In the present case the stay granted on 28.9.1988 was not vacated. I am of the view that the ratio of the decisions referred to supra will directly

apply to the facts of the case. Though the present proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can go one step further

and undo the mischief already done namely passing of the award. There will be no award in the eye of law. The result would be that the decision of

the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and Others, will come into play and the land acquisition proceedings

pertaining to the writ petitioner will have to be quashed and the respondents will have to take proceedings under Act of 31 of 1978 whose validity

has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings are quashed. However, there will be

no order as to costs.