LexTHE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNHB & ANR. versus S. SARASWATHY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 331 . 1 ' - 1' "' THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNHB & A ANR. v. S. SARASWATHY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 736-737 of 2008) MAY 11, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land c Acquisition proceedings by State Housing Board- Issuance of Notification and declaration - Land falling under the said Survey owned by three persons-VP, AJ and ASN - Said persons had obtained approved layout plan from the Director Town Planning for the said Survey, few months before D issuance of Notification -Award passed by the State - PV, son of VP received compensation and possession of the land taken over by the State - However, after three years, PV sold one of its plot to the respondents - Meanwhile, ASN had filed writ petitions along _with others and High Court E quashed the declaration issued u/s. 6 but left the Notification · issued uls. 4 intact - This Court held that the order of the High Court in absence of challenge by the State became final and the acquisition itself is quashed - Second batch of writ petitions by PV on determination of compensation, F dismissed by the High Court - No appeal thereagainst as such acquisition proceedings qua the writ petitioners in the said batch attained finality- Thereafter, another batch of writ petitions by respondents, seeking protection of their possession and enjoyment over the suit land and direction G to the Housing Board to issue them No Objection Certificate to ef!able them to put construction on the suit land - Case of the respondents that order passed in ASN case had the effect of quashing the acquisiffon proceedings in toto and that ASN H 331 .j 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R. A was co-owner with PVofthe property in the said survey and was authorize by PV to initiate• all subsequent proceedings - Writ petitions allowed by the High Court- Said order upheld by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: Unless the Declaration uls. 6 or the Notification uls. 4 is not explicitly B quashed in toto or in its wholeness by the Court, the benefits of relief granted by the Court would be effective only qua the parties before it - Those who failed to challenge the acquisition proceedings, cannot, thereafter, follow those who challenged the acquisition before the Court at the appropriate C time and thereafter obtained favourable orders - Respondents including their vendor, PV, cannot be permitted to take any advantage of the orders passed by this Court in ASN's case - This Court in ASN case annulled the 0 Notification issued u/s. 4 on the premises of limitation which would mean that the rest of the acquisition proceedings was left untouched by this Court in ASN - Further, respondents had purchased the suit land after the Award had been passed and possession of the land had been taken by the State, E they could not have acquired any rights against the State - PV did not bring down the acquisition proceedings qua his land, but on the contrary, by accepting compensation, had manifested his acceptance of the Award- Thus, once the land stood vested in the State u/s. 16, PV and his vendees- F respondents, could not have created and engineered rights or interests in the property against the State, except the right of seeking and receiving enhanced compensation - Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that ASN as a co-owner or even otherwise, had challenged the G acquisition proceedings qua the entire Survey on behalf of himself and PV also - Thus, the order passed by the High Courts is set aside. A. Viswanatha Pillai v. The Special Tahsildar for Land H Acquisition No. IV (1991) 4 SCC 17 and Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab (2003) 1 SCC 526 - distinguished. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNHB & 333 ANR. v. S. SARASWATHY & ORS. A. S. Naidu. v. State of Tamil Nadu SLP Nos. 11353-55 A of 1988; Abhey Ram v. Union of India 1997 (3) SCR 931: (1997) 5 SCC 421; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran (2010) 2 SCC 786; Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 533: (1993) 4 SCC 255; Delhi Admin. v. Gurdip Singh Uban 1999 (1) Suppl. B SCR 650: (1999) 7 SCC 44; Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496: (2000) 7 sec 296 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1997 (3) SCR 931 Referred to. Para 9 (2010) 2 sec 786 Referred to. Para 10 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 533 Referred to. Para 10 1999 (1)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.