LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus L. KRISHNAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. v. L. KRISHNAN AND ORS. JANUARY 17, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 6, 11, 12, 48(1Hand acquired for public pur- C pose-Planned developmel!t of the city for residential purpose• to relieve housing scarcity-Pait of lands withdrawn for pwposes of outstation bus stand and wholesale fniit market-Also being for public pwpose, the withdrawal will not have any effect on the notification issued under S.4(1)-No infinnity in the notifications issued under Ss.4(1) and 6-How- eve1; 1 acre and 50 cents to be excluded for the purpose of const1t1ctio11 of D residential houses for the members of the claimant family and ihe withdrawal notification under S.48(1) to· be· issued within three ntonths. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yousef & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. 10islman & Ors. Etc., JT (1995) E. 8 SC 1 and State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. v.V. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors., (C.A. 11555 of 1995), relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 1992. F From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.91 of the Madras High G Court in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983. A. Mariarputham for Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the Appellants. A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent No. 1. Shankar Ghosh and M.N. Krishnamani Prabir Choudhury and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondent Nos. 3-4. V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent No. 6. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 708 ( I ' > • ' STATE v. L. KRISHNAN 709 This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division A Bench of the Madras High Court made in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 on April 22, 1991. Notification under Section 4(1) of lhe Land Acquisition Act (Act 1of1894) (for short, 'lhe Act') was published on August 29, 1975 acquiring large extent of land for planned development of K.K. Nagar in Madras City. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on Septem- ber 28, 1978. The award under Section 11 of the Act was made in February, 1983. The writ petition was filed on July 28, 1983 questioning the notifica- tion under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that the notification was vague and invalid since the Government had not formulated specific scheme for construction of the houses. That contention found favour with the High Court and consequently it quashed the notification in the first instance, which order was upheld by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu & A1tr. v.A. Mohammed Yousef & Ors., [1991) 4 SCC 224. Following the said decision, this writ petition along with other writ petitions was allowed by the Division Bench. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. Krish1ta1t B c & 01'. Etc., JT (1995) 8 SC 1 had held that the scheme as envisaged under D the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act was not required to be completely formulated before publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification on that account, therefore, was not vague. Same contention has been raised in this appeal; but specific argument was made at the time that there is distinguishing feature on factual background and that, therefore, it was required to be separately dealt with. Accordingly, E this appeal was separated. Thus, we are hearing this appeal independently. Shri A. Mariarputham, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the respondents had laid their claim on the basis that the sanction for layout from the Director, Town Planning was obtained as early as in 1970 F and the notifications were issued by the Government from time to time excluding such lands and on that premise the respondents claimed ex- clusion. But the Government after elaborate consideration in G.O.Ms. No. 583 dated March 11, 1983 had withdrawn the earlier notifications and several writ petitions were filed after that order was passed. The foundation G on the basis of which the writ petition was filed was knocked of its bottom. The High Court was not, therefore, right in granting the relief to the respondents. Dr. Shankar Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the respon- dents, contended that since the notifications had been quashed in respect of some other lands covered in the same notifications, the respondents stand on the same position as others and are entitled to the same benefit. H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A Though we had adjourned the appeal to get particu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.