LexTHE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI versus R. SIVASANKARA MEHTA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 243 THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R. SIVASANKARA MEHTA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No(s). 5740-5741 of 2005) APRIL 13, 2011 [ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.48, and s.48-8 (as inserted by Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 - Release of acquired land - A B c Land acquired in 1949 and transferred to Municipal Corporation - Government, by order dated 19.3.1995, directing reconveyance of a portion of the land to land-owners 0 - However, subsequently, by order dated 25. 7. 1995, the order dated 10. 3. 1995 cancelled - Writ petition of land owners allowed by High Court - HELD: When the order of re- conveyance was made on 10.3.1995, s.48 of the Act was holding the field - Under the provisions of s.48 the land- owners had no right of asking for re-conveyance in · 1995 as E . the possession had been taken in 1949 and land vested in Government in 1962 - Further, the Government divested itself by giving the land over to the Corporation - So, exercise of power by Government in cancelling the previous reconveyance cannot be faulted. - Section 48-8 is not F retrospective in operation - Even before making release of land uls 48-8, Government must be satisfied that the land is not required for any public purpose - Corporation needs the land for parking space, which is certainly a public purpose - In view of clear provisions of s.48, there is no question of G promissory estoppel which is an equitable doctrine and has no application to the facts of the case - Promissory estoppel - Equity. 243 H -· 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R A Lands of the respondents were acquired pursuant to notification dated 3.1.1949 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On getting the enhanced compensation in reference proceedings, the land owners did not take the matter further. The lands acquired vested B in the State u/s 16 in 1962. In 1995 the respondents made a representation for release/reconveyance of a portion of the land, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant- Corporation was not utilising the same. The Government by its order dated 10-3-1995 directed the Corporation to c reconvey a portion of the lands admeasuring 5 grounds and 416 sq. ft. to the land owners or their legal heirs or nominees under ex-owner category. The Corporation made a representation to the Government for utilization of the said land as parking space. Accordingly, the 0 Government by order dated 25-7-1995 cancelled the order of reconveyance passed on 10-3-1995. The writ petitions filed by the respondents challenging the order were allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Branch of the High Court referred to the provisions of s.48-8 which was introduced by the Land E Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1996, and declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the appeals. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, s. 48-B came on the statute book in 1997 by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (being Act 16of1997). The assent of the President to the said Act was received on 14.3.1997. G On perusal of s. 48-8, it is clear that the same is not retrospective in operation. The said provision, which is a departure from s. 48 can apply only prospectively. [para 7 and 8) [249-F-G; 250-B] H Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R. 245 SIVASANKARA MEHTA Ors., 2007 (3) SCR 1062 =AIR 2007 SC 1691 - referred A to. · 1.2 Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was holding the field when re-conveyance was purportedly ordered by the State Government by its order dated 10- B 3-1995. Under the provisions of s. 48 of the principal Act, the respondent(s) had no right of asking for re- conveyance in 1995 in as much as it was the admitted case of the parties that possession of the property had been taken over by the State as early as in 1949 when c the Award was passed and the land vested in the State Government in 1962. Thereafter it was transferred to the Corporation. This aspect of the case, which goes to the root of the question, was totally missed by the High Court. (para 11-12] (250-E; 251-C-D] o 1.3 Even assuming, that s. 48-B was available in 1995 when re-conveyance was ordered, even then the respondent(s) has no case. In a recent judgment rendered by this Court in L. Chandrase.kar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.