Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs G.K. Vijayakumar

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—These appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 08.10.1991, allowing the writ petitions filed by the aggrieved land owners, assailing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') in respect of their lands, at the instance of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that while there were various grounds urged in the writ petitions for assailing the impugned Notification, the learned single Judge in paragraph 2 of the impugned order has opined that the petitions could be disposed of on a short point, i.e. that the public purpose specified in the Notification suffers from the vice of vagueness and does not contain material particulars with sufficient clarity so as to enable the petitioners therein to make effective objections in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is no more available to the respondents in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. Vs. L. Krishnan and others etc., holding that non specification of the use does not invalidate the Notification. Thus, the impugned order predicated on that sole reasoning cannot be sustained and is consequently set aside.

The difficulty is that the other grounds urged by the petitioners in the petitions having not been dealt with by the learned single Judge and thus, would require adjudication, for which the matter would have to be remitted back to the learned single Judge, as we have no decision on those issues and there is also the question of right to appeal of the parties against any decision to be rendered by the learned single Judge.

The matter has got a little more complication on account of the facts after the impugned order has been passed, the present appeals were filed belatedly after many years though the delay in filing of the appeals was condoned. In the interregnum period, properties are stated to have been dealt with when the acquisition proceedings stood quashed. There are also consequences on account of the quantum of delay in filing the appeals as urged by the learned counsel for the respondents, as according to them, once Section 4(1) Notification is quashed and the order is not stayed in appeal, non issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, would give rise to rights in favour of the private respondents/claimants.

There is also another aspect arising from the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the amendment carried out vide the Ordinance No. 9 of 2014 and the State Government carrying out its own amendments as per L.A. Bill Nos. 30 of 2014 and 31 of 2014, which are stated to have received the assent of the President on 1st January, 2015.

We would have been inclined to examine the issue arising from the subsequent developments and the belated filing of the appeals, but, then, apart from this, the original grounds urged in the petitions are also sought to be urged before us, on which, decision ought to be given by the learned single Judge. 8. The result of the aforesaid is that the various grounds raised in original writ petitions would have to be examined apart from the further pleas, which may be available to the respondents before us arising from the situation post the impugned order, both on merits and on account of delay in filing the appeals. Thus, the learned senior counsel for the private respondents states that they will file an affidavit urging additional grounds, for which, we grant leave.

Thus, while allowing the writ appeals, we remit the matter back to the learned single Judge with the following directions;

Learned counsels for the private respondents are granted three weeks time to urge additional grounds as prayed for.

Counter affidavit by the appellant/Government Department will be filed within two weeks thereafter.

The respondents are at liberty to raise all the grounds as are available to them arising from the factual and legal situation post passing of the impugned order;

The appellants will also administratively examine the plea raised before us by the learned counsel for the private respondents/land owners that on account of subsequent developments and the ground reality of adjacent land, it is impracticable today to utilise the land of the respondents before us and as to whether the appellants really now want to acquire the lands. Such examination will take place within three weeks of the communication of the order.

All the writ petitions will be listed for directions/hearing on 04.03.2015 and it is for the learned single Judge to take up the matters for final hearing on that day or any other convenient day at the earliest which the learned Judge finds feasible.

In view of the age of the matters and the requirement of expeditious disposal, these matters be placed before R.Mahadevan,J. on the said date.

The interim orders operating in favour of the respondents during the pendency of the writ petitions would stand revived and would continue till the disposal of the writ petitions.

These writ appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.