LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

C. PADMA AND ORS. versus THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 22-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
C. PADMA AND ORS. 
v. 
THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF 
TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
C 
S. 4( I), 6-Acquisition of land for setting up industo-f'roceedings 
became final--Compensation paid to land owne,-.Later the acquired land 
given by Government to another subsidiary company on leasehold basis--Ac-
quisition challenged on the ground that public purpose for which acquisition 
was made ceased to exit-Held, in tem1s of the agreement, land came to be 
suTTendered to the Government for resumptir.m-Then the lands were allotted 
D to another subsidiary amalgamated company of the original company-There-
fore public purpose for which acquisition was made was substituted for 
another public purpose. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15526 of 
E 1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.93. of the Madras High 
Court in W.A. No. 712 of 1993. 
G. Ramaswamy, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellants. 
Ramasubramaniam, E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh and V. Krishnamurthy 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court, mac!e on June 29, 1993 in W.A. No. 
H 712193. 
158 
โ€ข 
ยท-
C.P.(\DMAv. DY.SECY. TOTHEGOVf.OF T.N. 
159 
The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published A 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") 
in G.O.R.. No. 1392 Industries dated October 17, 1962, total extent of 6 
acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram village Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu 
District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the 
manufacture of Synthetic Rasina by Tvl. Reichold Chemical India ltd., B 
Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of 
the land was taken on April 30, 1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed 
by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance 
Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear 
that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one 
acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally 'had ownersliip, C 
was transferred in G.O.M.S. No. 816 Industries dated March 24, 1971 in 
favour of another subsidiary company. Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 
5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the Company had 
requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on 
lease hold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the D 
agreement in G.O.M.S. No. 439 Industries dated May 10, 1985. In 
G.0.M.S. No. 546 Industries dated March 30, 1986, the same came to be 
approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original G.O.M.S. No. 
1392 Industries dated October 17, 1962 contending that since the original 
purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, 
the appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. 
E 
The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the 
acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of the 
compensation by the predecessor-in- title of the appellants, they have no 
right to challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ 
appeal came to be dismissed. 
F 
Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
lant, contends that when by operation of Section 44-B read with Section 40 
of the Act, the public purpose ceased to be existing, the acquisition became 
bad and therefore, the G.O. was bad in law. We find no force in the 
contention. It is seen that after the notification in G.O.R. 1392 dated G 
October 17, 1%2 was published, the acquisition proceeding had become 
final, the compensation was paid to the appellant's father and thereafter 
the lands stood vested in the State. In terms of the agreement as con-
templated in Chapter VII of the Act, the company had delivered possession 
โ€ข subject to the terms and conditions thereunder. It is seen that one of the H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A conditions was that on cessation of the public purpose, the lands acquired 
would be surrendered to the Government. In furtherance thereof, the lands 
came to be surrendered to the Government for resumption. The lands then 
were allotted to SRVS Ltd., 5th respondent which is also

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.