LexV. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. versus THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 603 V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6342-6343 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition - Acquisition proceeding - Under Land Acquisition Act - Proceeding never challenged in respect of C land in question - Compensation accepted - Possession of land given to authority concerned - Declaration uls. 6, in respect of the land other than the land in question, quashed - The original tenure-holder selfing the land in question to the appellants (vendees) - Applications, by original tenure- D holders for re-conveyance of the land in question, rejected - Writ petitions by the vendees seeking quashing of Notification u/s. 4 and in another petition seeking direction to re-convey the land in their favour - Single Judge of High Court allowing the petitions - Division Bench of High Court setting aside E order of Single Judge - Vendees seeking release of the land in question in their favour subject to refund of compensation amount - On appeal, held: The person interested, if does not raise any objection uls. 5A, accepts the compensation and does not challenge acquisition proceedings, cannot be F permitted to challenge the proceeding after about 3 decades - The quashing of the declaration in some other case, would not enure any benefit to such person - Once the possession of the land was taken by the State and the land got vested in it free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and G restored to the person interested - The person interested becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State - The person who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of notification u/s. 4, is not competent to challenge 603 H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A the validity of the acquisition proceedings because the sale deed does not confer upon him any title - The vendees have also not approached the court with clean hands as they have played fraud upon the authorities and used forged document - Hence not ~titled to any equitable relief either - Appeals B dismissed with cost of Rs. 25 lacs - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6. Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of court - Held: A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading/ C inaccurate statement, only to achieve ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court. D Maxims: 'Nemo dat quod non habet' - Applicability of 'Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et lnjuria Fieri Locupletiorem' - Meaning and applicability of. A notificatioi;t uls. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 E was issued in the year 1978. The notification was in respect of land including the suit land. A declaration u/s. 6 of the Act was also issued. Writ Petitions were filed challenging the acquisition F proceedings in respect of the land other than the suit land. In that round of litigation, which went up to Supreme Court, the declaration u/s. 6 was quashed and notification u/s. 4 was quashed only qua those lands, in respect of which the acquisition proceedings were challenged. In G the meantime, award was passed in respect of the land including the suit land. H Second batch of writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and the award. The petitions were allowed. Thereafter, second award was made in V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 605 OFFICER & ORS. respect of the remaining part of the acquired land which A also included the suit land. In respect of the suit land, the persons interested/ tenure-holders never filed any objections u/s. 5A of the Act, nor did they challenge the acquisition proceedings 8 at any stage. They accepted the compensation amount under protest for inadequacy of compensation amount. Possession of the sui.t land was taken over by the Authority. Thereafter, the tenure-holders transferred the suit C land in favour of the appellants in the year 2004 and 2005. Appellants claimed to have acquired possession of the suit land. They also obtained permission from the Development Authority to construct flat thereon. The original tenure-holders filed applications for re- conveya n ce of the suit land, which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed two writ petitions. D In one petition they sought for the quashing of the Notification u/s. 4 issued in the year 1978 pertaining to E the lan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.