LexT.R. BOOPALAN & ORS versus TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11S.C.R.1016 i" A T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. f TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2008) B AUGUST 7, 2008 ~ [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition proceed- ings - Quashing of s. 4 Notification by High Court - Effect of - ( c Appellants-land owners discovered later that in writ petition area of land owned by them was wrongly mentioned - Appli- J- cation for amendment, dismissed - Appellants seeking 'No Objection Certificate' for construction on portion owned by them I ~ - Authorities refusing to grant on ground that appellants en- ' I- D titled to relief only to the extent of land indicated in High Court's order- Held: Not justified-Authorities wrongly confined 'NOC' ·~ to the area of land mentioned in the writ petition - Since the entire lands stood released from the acquisition proceedings, appellants were entitled to grant of 'NOC' for land owned by E them - Judgment/Order - Correction of typographical error ~ owing to error in pleading. ~ I Appellants were owners of plot of land in Survey No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres, which was subject to ac- r quisition proceedings. Appellants filed writ petition chal- F lenging the acquisition proceedings which was allowed. -( Thereafter appellants discovered that by way of inadvert- ence, the measurement of land was shown in writ peti- tion as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and moved an application for correcting the mistake. The said applica- -~ G tion was dismissed by the High Court. Appellants made an application to the Housing Board I- for grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the ¥ lands comprised in Survey No.188/4 for raising construe- r- tions thereupon. It was rejected. The appellants filed a . \ H 1016 > TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU 1017 HOUSING BOARD & ORS. fresh wrjt petition before .the High Court, for a direction to A the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certifi- cate" in respect of the aforesaid land consequent upon. the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition. The High C~urt directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellants. s The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed. As the matter was not proceeded any further, the order of High Court became fim· l between the p(lrties. Thereafter, Housing Board offered to give a "No Obje~ tion Certificate" to the appellants for 0.81 cents only. The appellants filed a fresh Writ Petition, for a direc- tion upon the Respondent No. 1 to issue a "No Objection Certificate" to the appellants in respect of the entire 0.81 · · acres comprising Survey No. 188/4, which was allowed. The Housing Board filed appeal, which was allowed c D by the Division -Bench of High Court holding, that the ap- pellants were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land indicated in the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench also held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the ap- E pellants' application for amending the said order which had also attained finality as no appeal had been preferred against the same. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land comprised in Survey No. 188/4 measures 0.81 acres. There is also no dispute that in deciding the Writ Petition filed by the appellants challenging the Notifica- tion under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in re- G spect of Survey No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said notification was quashed. When the parties are not dis~ puting upon the basic fact that the Notification in respect of the entire Survey No.188/4 was quashed, there could be no justification in taking a technical objection that since . H 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. 1" A the Writ Petition mentioned the relief sought by the writ I petitioners/appellants to be in respect of 0.81 cents, the ap- t- pellants must be held to such prayer, even if apparently a r mistake had been committed. [Paras 16, 17] [1023 D,E,F,G] ' B 2. When the Notification under s.4(1) of the L. A. Act, with regard to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in re- -t- spect of the entire lands comprising 0.81 acres, there was no reason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of r "No Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in I the Writ Petition. Since the entire lands stood released tr c from the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.