9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals are as under: A. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ), was issued on 15.5.1978 with respect to land measuring 58.59 acres, in the revenue estate of Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu, including the suit land measuring 2.26 acres in Survey Nos. 283/1 (extent of 27 cents), 284/1 (extent of 70 cents), 284/2 (extent of 65 cents) and 284/3 (extent of 64 cents). As the provisions of the Urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Act were not invoked, the persons interested were at liberty to file objections under Section 5- A of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the said land was issued on 6.6.1981. Very few among the persons interested, challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing 8 writ petitions, including Writ Petition Nos. 8897 and 8899 of 1983 etc. which were filed by some of the original tenure-holders of the suit land on several grounds. However, the said petitioners did not challenge the acquisition proceedings so far as the suit land is concerned, rather they chose to restrict their cases to the other parts of their lands. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is nothing on record to show whether the claimants had filed any application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. G. The tenure-holders/persons-interested in the suit land, after receiving compensation, and handing over the possession to the respondents authorities with respect to the suit land, transferred the said land to some persons, and ultimately, after undergoing multiple sales, the suit land was purchased by the appellants herein, vide sale- deeds dated 4.3.2004, 10.11.2004, 7.7.2005 and 11.8.2005. As a result thereof, they claim to have acquired possession of the said suit land. The appellants planned to construct flats upon the said land, for the purpose of which, they had also obtained permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 16.3.2007. Applications were filed by the original tenure-holders for re-conveyance of the suit land which stood as rejected vide order dated 7.7.2008. H. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 6108 of 2009 for the quashing of the Notification dated 15.5.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Act, pertaining to the land that comprised 9 Survey Numbers, including the suit land contending t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the same was not accepted by the Board and was therefore, returned to the tenure-holders. The appellants are still willing to refund the amount of compensation received by the persons- interested, in pursuance of the illegal and void awards, dated 28.6.1983 and 14.8.1986. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside and the present appeals should be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Shri S. Gomathi Nayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeals, contending that the predecessor-in-interest, of the appellants did not raise any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, with respect to such acquisition proceedings at any stage, rather they accepted the compensation granted under protest. To receive an award under protest is a legal requirement for the purpose of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The quashing of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act would not automatically apply to the suit land, as it was not the subject matter of challenge with respect to the acquisition proceedings before court. The appellants did not make any inquiry whatsoever, with respect to the title of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there will be an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder. The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of india v. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhargava Ors., JT (1995) 6 SC 274. 7. Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1170, this Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person- interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. (See also: Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 698). 8. In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177, this Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, necessarily that would enure the benefit to others also, though they did not file any petition, except to those whose lands were taken possession of and were vested in the State under Sections 16 and 17(2) of the Act free from all encumbrances. (Emphasis added) 12. In H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. Syed Khader Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2244, this Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings in toto, wherein the land had been acquired by the Government for the use of the cooperative society which had planned a housing scheme upon it, in view of the conclusion that it could not be called a public purpose , within the meaning of the Act. The Court further directed the respondents therein to restore the possession of the land to the tenure-holders/persons-interested, and such persons were thereafter, directed to refund the amount received by them as compensation. (See also: H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. M. Venkataswamappa Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 128) 13. The said judgment has subsequently been approved and followed by this Court, in Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3822, wherein this Court held as follows: Quashing the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period. (Vide: Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar . Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424, M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar Ors., AIR 2005 SC 492). 17. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Pras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 1 SCC 335; and Leelawanti Ors. v. State of Haryana Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 66). 21. In Government of Andhra Pradesh Anr. v. Syed Akbar (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons- interested/tenure holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore) . Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. Anr. v. State of U.P. Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354). 22. In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id legal propositions. From the facts it is evident that, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants approached the court by filing Writ Petitions as well as writ appeals, with respect to some of their lands, but for the reasons best known to them, they did not challenge the acquisition proceedings so far as the suit land is concerned. The appellants filed a writ petition for quashing the land acquisition proceedings and/or seeking a declaration to the effect that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 15.5.1978, in relation to Survey Nos. 282/1, 282/2, 283/1, 283/2, 284/1, 284/2, 284/3, 284/4 situated in Tambaram Village, Chennai, had lapsed and become inoperative and consequently, to issue a mandamus, barring the respondents, their men, their agents, subordinates, servants or anyone acting under them, from interfering in any manner, with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties belonging to the appellants, as stipulated in the aforementioned surveys. 27. The appellants also filed another writ petition for quashing the orders passed in relation to the applications of their predecessors-in- interest with respect to re-conveyance of the said land. The reliefs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience .. .The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. 30. In the instant case, the tenure holders/person-interested neither filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, nor have they challenged the land acquisition proceedings, so far as the suit land is concerned, instead they chose to withdraw the compensation awarded in 1983 and 1986; after the expiry of about three decades and hence, they cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. The appellants cannot claim title/relief better than what the original vendors were entitled to. 31. In fact, the appellants have claimed reliefs in the writ petitions with respect to not just the suit land but also in relation to the land which was the subject matter of an earlier litigation by their predecessors-in-interest. We fail to understand for what purpose the relief of quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court. 36. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed an altogether new creed of litigants, that is, dishonest litigants and went on to strongly deprecate their conduct by observing that, the truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system. The quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the course of court proceedings. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice, or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 37. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the entire material on record, we reach the following inescapable conclusions:- i) The suit land stood notified under Section 4 of the Act as on 15.5.1978. There is nothing on record to show, nor have the appellants made any pleadings to the effect that, the persons interested at the relevant time ever filed any objections whatsoever, in response to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act. ii) Predecessors-in-interest of the appellants have filed two writ petitions challenging the validity of acquisition of some of their land but they did not raise the issue of validity of the acquisition in respect of the suit land. iii) Award no.14/1983 was made on 28.6.1983, in respect of Survey Nos.283/1, 284/1 and 284/3. The amount of compensation, was withdrawn by the original tenure holders/persons-interested, though of course, under protest, and the same was limited to the extent of quantum of compensation, so that they could approach the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. iv) The judgment of the learned Single Judge is subsequent to the aforesaid award. As the compensation related to the land had been withdrawn, and the land st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by furnishing false information. xii) The appellants also managed to obtain certain orders from the Department and further have abused the process of the court. xiii) The appellants did neither approach the statutory authority nor the court with clean hands. xiv) Compensation was paid to the original tenure holders in 1983 and 1986. The same was refunded by the present appellants in the name of the original tenure holders in 2010 i.e. after 27 years, and the same has not been accepted by the Board and has been duly returned to the appellants. xv) The recommendations of the High Level Committee contained in Annexure-P.11 make it clear that the said Committee was constituted, only upon the request of the appellants to consider their grievances. The recommendations suggest that although possession of the suit land was taken, as the land was inaccessible, it remained unutilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. Therefore, reconveyance of the same was suggested. xvi) An application for re-conveyance was filed by the original tenure holders and their legal heirs, and not by the appellants with respect to the said part of the suit land, as is evident from the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
