TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD versus A. VISWAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 09-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

...,/ 
A 
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
A. VISWAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections~ 11, 12, 16, 18, 30-Award-Persons having interest in par-
C ticular land-All of them having laid their claims LAO rightly deposited 
compensation in Cowt-Land acquired for public purpose viz. constmction ' 
of houses and public park-Only a pmt of the land cannot be left ouHfence 
acquisition is complete in respect of all the lands .mentioned in the Notifica-
t 
\ 
'-.. - . 
< 
tion-Possession must therefore have been taken of the lands including the 
'-, 
land in question-Therefore Injunction cannot be issued against the Housing 
D Board, the tme owner. 
' 
Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors., [1975) Supp. SCR 
250, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3617-18 
E 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.95 of the Madras High 
Court in R.P. No 81/94 and the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.94 in S.A. 
No 1526 of 1988. 
F 
Harish Salve, A. Mariarputham, Mrs. Aruna Mathur and Ajay 
Kumar for the Appellants. 
R.F. Nariman, S. Nand Kumar, L.K. 'Pandey for the Respondents 
Nos. 3-8 & 11. 
· 
G 
S. Sivasubramaniam, and M.A. Chinasamy for the Respondent No.9. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
Thes.e appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and decree 
402 
-, 
-
T.N. HSG. BD. v. A VISWAM 
403 
of the High Court of Madras made on April 7, 1994 in S.A. No. 1526 of A 
1988. The facts are not in dispute. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(Act 1 of 1894) (for short, the "Act") was published on September 17, 1958 
acquiring a large eXt:ent of 339 acres of land comprising Kodambakkam 
and Pudoor villages known as "Part I Neighbourhood Scheme" and 
renamed as "Ashok Nagar Scheme" of Madras City for planned develop-
ment. Declaration under Section 6 was published on November 26, 1958. 
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award under Section 11 on 
February 28, 1966. It is the case of the appellant that the Land Acquisition 
Officer had taken possession of the land on February 28, 1966 and 
delivered possession to the appellant on March 21, 1966. It is not in dispute 
that under the Scheme as many. as 3639 residential houses have been 
constructed and delivered possession of. The disputed land in an extent of 
one acre and thirty two cents is set apart for public park in the Scheme 
which stood vested in the Municipality. 
B 
c 
D 
It is the case of the respondent that he is the owner of the land having 
title to and possession of the same for over 30 years preceding the date of 
filing of the suit, viz., April 19, 1984 and the appellant was sought to 
interdict his possession and enjoyment. Consequentially, he filed the suit 
for perpetual injunction against the appellant. Admittedly, he was a servant E 
of the Apparao Mudaliar. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, 
the City Civil Judge decreed the suit and the High Court confirmed the 
same. Thus these appeals by special leave. 
It is contended by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appear-
F 
ing for the respondents, that in a mere ~uit for injunction though inciden-
tally founded on title, the courts are require to record a finding whether 
the respondents were in possession of the land as on the date of the suit 
and if finding of being in possession is recorded then they are entitled to 
perpetual injunction against everyone except the true owner. In this case, G 
all the three courts concurrently found as a fact that the respondents were 
in possession of the land as on the date of the suit. The appellant had not 
proved that possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer from the 
respondents. Thereby the right, title and interest held by the respondents 
was not divested by operation of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, the 
respondents continue to remain to be the lawful owner. Accordingly, they H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
are entitled to injunction against everyone including the appellant-Board. 
B 
c 
In support of his contention, he placed strong reliance on Ba/want Narayan 
Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors., (1975] Supp. SCR 250. 
The question is: whether tlie premise on which the learned counsel 
has projected the case is based on legally acceptable legal premise ? It is 
true when the High Court has, as a pure appreciation of evidence, con-
sidered a

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