Satharam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.18821 of 2016 1 Satharam 2 Seetharam 3 A.Thiruppathi 4 A.Subbulakshmi 5 G.Arthi 6 P.S.Sajivkumar 7 K.Kanthzhi 8 M.Miniyappan 9 M.Arumugam 10 K.Selvi 11 K.Durgadevi 12 M.S.Susheela 13 R.Saraswathi 14 R.Subramaniyam 15 Sureshkumar 16 C.Venkatesan 17 S.Dhanalakshmi 18 V.Selvaraj 19 M.Muniyappan 20 R.Palanisamy 21 R.Murugesan 22 C.Bhaskaran 23 D.Chandran 24 J.Ramuthai 25 K.Neema 26 K.Murugesan 27 S.Krishnamoorthy 28 K.Velusamy 29 K.Perumal 30 A.Thiruppathi 31 G.Muneeswari 32 Azhaguvel 33 P.Krishnarajan 34 S.Anbuselvi 35 P.Rangadurai 36 S.Baby 37 K.Sinduja 38 Marudhachalam 39 S.Rajalakshmi
40 K.Ramakrishnan 41 K.M.Mani 42 G.A.Surender 43 S.Muthusamy 44 K.M.Sivakumar 45 J.Chitra 46 D.Yuvaraja 47 G.Parimalam 48 Somasundaram 49 P.Ravi 50 R.Palanisamy 51 R.Harikeshmeena 52 S.Periasamy 53 C.Thulasimani 54 Subramani 55 B.Seenivasa Gopal 56 K.Kumar 57 N.Gowri 58 Athena 59 R.Chandrasekaran 60 Nagaraj 61 Rukmani 62 S.Saroja 63 Rajamanickam 64 R.Rathinam 65 D.Sampathkumar 66 B.Giridharan 67 D.Dayanidhi 68 V.Murugan 69 A.P.Amirtham 70 M.K.Kumar 71 S.Saravanan 72 K.Palanisamy 73 M.Sureshkumar 74 A.Sivalingam 75 T.Balakrishnan 76 Jyothi Arumugam 77 T.Vincent 78 Premalatha 79 S.Maruthamuthu 80 M.Savithri 81 D.Periyasamy 82 D.Saraswathy 83 M.Balasubramaniyam 84 A.Rajagopal 85 M.Bhagiyam 86 C.Ganeshankar 87 P.Kumaresan 88 D.Maheswari 89 Kalavathi
90 D.Appaswamy 91 Renukadevi 92 S.Jothimani 93 Selvamani 94 M.Ramasamy 95 G.Mohanraj 96 P.Veerasamy 97 R.Jothipaul 98 A.Arumugham 99 T.Arumugham 100 K.Palaniyammal 101 K.Natarayan 102 G.Balakrishnan 103 T.Gopalakrishnan 104 P.Sethumadhavan 105 N.Soundra Priya 106 R.Nandagopal 107 S.Velumani 108 R.Ghanthi .. Petitioners Vs 1 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2 The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep.by its Managing Director Nandanam Chennai-35 3 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Tatabad Coimbatore-12.
.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a directing the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board Chennai 35 to grant the petitioners herein N.O.Cs. in respect of the petitioners plots situate in S.F. No. 114 115(4) (5)
(6) 116 146 (1&2) and 118 in Vilankurichi Village Coimbatore District consequent upon quashing Sec. 4 (1) Land Acquisition Act proceedings in G.O.Ms.864 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.5.1991 in W.P. No. 17524/1992 dated 10.11.2000 and to consequently to show in the Revenue and other records that the lands have been released for Land Acquisition Proceedings.
For Petitioner ..
Mr.K.Radhakrishnan for Mr.K.Parameswari For Respondents ..
Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.Vivekavanan for R3
ORDER
This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners who have purchased small plots of land from the original owner, against whom, proceedings has been initiated in G.O.Ms.No.864 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.05.1991, decades ago. It appears that the said proceedings was challenged on the premise that though the declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.514 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10.08.1992 speaks about the name of the original owner, it was not preceded by an enquiry. The writ petition filed in W.P.No.17524 of 1992 was allowed on 10.11.2000 in the following manner:
"3.Even though Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Government Advocate strongly contends that the petitioner is not entitled to seek to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act made in G.O.Ms.No.864 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.05.1991, it is not in dispute that the Government, now, cannot proceed with the impugned acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the notification dated 27.05.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Act, after a lapse of nine years, which requires me to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, after a lapse of nine years, which requires me to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act made in G.O.Ms.No.864 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.05.1991 and accordingly the same is quashed." 2.Now, the petitioners, who have purchased the lands in the year 2012 and thereafter, have come forward to file this writ petition, seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue No objection certificates.
3.Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that as against the order dated 10.11.2000 passed in W.P.No.17524 of 1992, an appeal has been preferred in the year 2002 in W.A.SR.No.10748 of 2002. The said matter could not be numbered as the original owner died and therefore, it has been posted before the Registry for bringing the legal representatives of the original owner on record. 4.This Court is afraid that the said submission cannot be
accepted. The final order was passed on 10.11.2000 by this Court. it appears that the respondents filed the appeal with delay which is a general situation in most of the cases. The matter did not rest there. No steps have been taken to bring the application for hearing and get the delay condoned for nearly 15 years. If the respondents knew very well about the death of the original owner, nothing prevented them from taking appropriate steps to bring on record the legal representatives at an appropriate stage. There is lethargy at every stage. The sale deeds executed by the original owner or their representatives in favour of the petitioners cannot be found to be faulted with as there is nothing on record to show that they were aware of the appeal filed with condonation of delay by the respondents. Thus, looking from any perspective, this Court is of the view that the respondents do not have either law or equity in their favour as against the petitioners.
5.Accordingly, this Court is constrained to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the second respondent/Housing Board is directed to issue No Objection Certificates to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Housing Board cannot take a ground that it was not a party to the earlier proceedings. Suffice it to state that even it has not taken any steps to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings or made any attempt to take possession either from erstwhile vendor of the petitioners or from them over the years. However, this order is passed without prejudice to the pendency of the application filed for condonation of delay. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam Chennai-35.
3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Tatabad Coimbatore-12.
+5cc to Mr.K. Parameshwari, Advocate, S.R.No.19154 +1cc to Mr.B. Vivekavanan, Advocate, S.R.No.19739 gr(CO) md(03/04/2017) W.P.No.18821 of 2016