2014 (6) TMI 1022 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to vacate the land and hand over possession of the premises to the Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai - resumption of land - power of eminent domain - compulsory acquisition of the property - Legal rights. The crucial question that arises for consideration in this case is, when one organ of democracy, namely, the executive/Government has been empowered to entrust its own property to another organ viz., judiciary under which the control has been given to Administrator General & Official Trustee (AGOT) under an enactment, on the principle of eminent domain, can the Government invoke another enactment i.e., Government Grants Act under Section 3, resuming the land on its own, without resorting to any procedure contemplated under the Official Trusts Act ? Held that - The Government, while making an order for resumption of land through its executive, did not take any order either from the scheme court or from the AGOT Court. Though there were attempts made by the executive to file applications one by Chennai Metro Rail Limited and the other by District Collector, subsequently, the same were withdrawn. So, it is clear that there was no order made by AGOT Court, which is the court of competent jurisdiction to permit AGOT to hand over the possession of the land in its control to the Government, for resumption. The said judicial procedure has been overlooked by the Government in resuming the land, even of its own. This act of the Government, bypassing an act under which the entrustment has been made, would amount to violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India and the power of separation which has been demarcated could not be usurped by one organ on its own. Judicial discipline binds us and the constitutional wisdom underlined under Article 141 of the Constitution is to be followed - while upholding the rule of law that there shall be a proper procedure to approach the AGOT Court and also the competent court of civil jurisdiction where the scheme decree has been formulated for control and management of the property for obtaining an order before resumption of the land under the Official Trustees Act, these appeals are to be dismissed. Thus, though there is a violation of Rule of Law by the authorities in resumption of lands in question, with heavy heart, by giving due respect to the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court with regard to the very same subject lands, we are left with no other choice but to follow the same under Article 141 of the Constitution - appeals dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the resumption of land by the Government under G.O.Ms. No. 380.
2. Violation of lease/grant conditions by the lessees/sub-lessees/tenants.
3. Applicability of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
4. Compliance with the Official Trustees Act, 1913.
5. Validity of the Government's action under the Government Grants Act, 1895.
6. Public interest and necessity of land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project.
7. Judicial review of the Government's decision and adherence to the rule of law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Resumption of Land by the Government under G.O.Ms. No. 380:
The Government justified the resumption of land by stating that the purpose for which the grant was given was no longer in existence and that the land belonged to the Government. The land was required for the Chennai Metro Rail Project, a public purpose. The Government relied on Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, which allows the Government to resume land according to the terms of the grant, notwithstanding any rule of law or statute to the contrary.

2. Violation of Lease/Grant Conditions by the Lessees/Sub-lessees/Tenants:
The appellants argued that there was no breach of the conditions of the lease or grant. However, the Government contended that the land was being used for commercial purposes, which violated the original terms of the grant that stipulated the land should be used for a choultry. The High Court noted that the appellants had leased out the land to various tenants, which was a deviation from the original purpose.

3. Applicability of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India:
Article 300-A states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law. The appellants argued that their right to property was being violated. However, the Court held that since the land belonged to the Government and was granted with specific conditions, the resumption of the land for public purpose (Chennai Metro Rail Project) was justified. The Court emphasized that deprivation of property must be for a public purpose and subject to judicial review.

4. Compliance with the Official Trustees Act, 1913:
The appellants contended that the Government's action violated Sections 10, 25, and 29 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, which required the Court's direction for any transfer of trust property. The Court acknowledged this argument but ultimately held that the Government's action was within its rights under the Government Grants Act, 1895, and the need for the project outweighed procedural lapses.

5. Validity of the Government's Action under the Government Grants Act, 1895:
Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, allows the Government to impose any conditions and limitations on grants and to resume land according to the terms of the grant. The Court upheld the Government's action under this Act, stating that the resumption was in accordance with the original terms of the grant and necessary for the public purpose of the Chennai Metro Rail Project.

6. Public Interest and Necessity of Land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project:
The Court recognized the importance of the Chennai Metro Rail Project for easing traffic congestion and providing better transportation facilities in Chennai. It held that the public interest in completing the project outweighed the appellants' interests. The Court noted that any delay in the project would result in significant financial implications and inconvenience to the public.

7. Judicial Review of the Government's Decision and Adherence to the Rule of Law:
The Court emphasized the importance of the rule of law and judicial review of executive actions. While acknowledging procedural lapses by the Government, the Court ultimately upheld the resumption of land due to the overriding public interest. The Court directed the Government to assess and pay reasonable compensation to the appellants for the buildings on the land.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Government's resumption of land for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. The Court recognized the public interest and necessity of the project, while also emphasizing the importance of adherence to the rule of law and judicial review of executive actions. The Court directed the Government to assess and pay reasonable compensation to the appellants for the buildings on the land.