THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus DR. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
DR. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN
(Civil Appeal No. 8626 of 2009)
JULY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Allotment of alternate housing
site to the displaced persons – Property owned and possessed by
the private respondents were acquired for the purpose of
implementing ‘Mass Rapid Transport System’ (MRTS) Railway
project, under the provision of the Act, 1894 – Writ petitions – High
Court while rejecting the challenge to acquisition proceedings
observed that the appropriate authority of the State Government to
consider the representation made by private respondents for
allotment of a housing site by way of rehabilitation – Pursuant
thereto, representation was made before the State Government,
however, relief claimed was declined – Writ petition against the said
order of the State Government – High Court held that petitioners
were entitled to alternate site under special category of displaced
persons due to the acquisition of their lands for Railways – On
appeal, held: The acquisition in the present case was not for the
purpose of development of urban area or for providing a housing
scheme to the residents of the urban area in which the acquired
lands were situated – The acquisition was for a project of MRTS
(Railways) on behalf of the Ministry of Railway, Government of
India and not for the State Government or State Authority –
Admittedly, no scheme was formulated in relation to the stated railway
project implemented by the Central Government for providing
alternative housing sites to Project affected persons – In the absence
of such a scheme, the direction of High Court to provide alternative
housing sites cannot be countenanced in law – Further, private
respondents were duly compensated in conformity with the mandate
of Act, 1894 – Thus, impugned judgment and order of the High
Court set aside.
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 883
883
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The acquisition in the present case is certainly
not for the purpose of development of urban area or for providing
a housing scheme to the residents of the urban area in which the
acquired lands are situated. The acquisition, is for a project of
MRTS (Railways) on behalf of the Ministry of Railway,
Government of India and not for the State Government or State
Authority. Furthermore, admittedly, no scheme has been
formulated in relation to the stated railway project implemented
by the Central Government for providing alternative housing sites
to project affected persons. In the absence of such a scheme, it
is unfathomable that the High Court could still issue a direction
to the State Government and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, to provide alternative land to the
private respondent(s) as a special category of displaced persons.
Such a direction cannot be countenanced in law. This is reinforced
from the principle underlying the dictum in the case of New
Reviera Coop. Housing Society and Anr. Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Ors. In the said decision, the Court noted
that it would be a different matter if the State had come forward
with a proposal to provide an alternative site but that principle
cannot be extended as a condition in all cases of acquisition of
the land that the owner must be given an alternative site or flat.
The Court unambiguously rejected the contention of the affected
persons that acquisition of their land without providing them an
alternative site would impinge upon their right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 9] [895-F-H; 896-A-C]
2. Again, in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M.
Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr., the Court negatived the claim of the
land owners that the unused acquired land for construction of
national highway should be returned to them. Instead, the Court
held that since the acquisition had been completed and the land
had vested in the State Government, the unutilised acquired land
could be disposed of only through public auction so that the public
would benefit by getting a higher value. In another case, Tamil
Nadu Housing Board Vs. L. Chandrasekaran (dead) by Lrs. And
Ors., the Court restated the doctrine of public trust disabling the
State from giving back the property for a consideration less than
the market value, if it could not be used for any other public
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
885
purpose by the State in cases where 

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