Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 477 (MAD)

Valliammai Society v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-02-25

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner a Society, running several educational institutions in the State offering U.G., P.G., Post P.G. Courses and Doctoral Degrees. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sell the property measuring an extent of 2.28 acres comprised in Survey No. 134/1, Ramapuram Village, Chennai, to the petitioner at the value fixed by the High Power committee by the Government of Tamil Nadu following the directions issued by the first respondent in letter dated 14.3.2006. 2. The petitioner would state that the property in question was purchased by them during 1997 for construction of building for their educational institution and the vendors who were in possession of the property handed over possession to the petitioner. Since the property was low lying to a depth of 20 ft. there was water stagnation. It is further stated that the said property was acquired by the respondents for the Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme promoted by the Housing Board, pursuant to Notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act), during 1975. It is further stated that when the Award was passed in the year 1994. The petitioner would further state the third respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board had utilised only 25 acres of land out of total 338.28 acres and the possession of the third respondent is only a paper possession. The original land owners filed W.P. 525 OF 1995, challenging land acquisition proceedings and obtained interim orders. It is stated that when the petitioner purchased the property, the writ petition was pending and the interim order was in force. The petitioner sincerely believed that the writ petition would conclude in favour of the original land owners which would ultimately enure to the benefit of the petitioner. This belief is said to have been further strengthened by the communication dated 11.5.1996, recommending for the exclusion of the land on the disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No. 525 OF 1995. Therefore it is stated that at the instance of the petitioner, on the expectation that upon the disposal of the writ petition, the respondents would favourably consider the proposal of exclusion, the original owners were made to withdraw W.P.No.525 of 1995. After the withdrawal of the writ petition, the third respondent sent a letter dated 3.9.1999, requesting the Government for the issuance of notification for withdrawal of the acquisition. 3. After the withdrawal of the writ petition, the third respondent sent a letter dated 3.9.1999, requesting the Government for the issuance of notification for withdrawal of the acquisition. 3. In view of the above developments it is stated that the petitioner society, carried out developmental activity in the said property incurring huge costs and these developmental activities are well within the knowledge of the respondents. Whileso, during 2004, the third respondent served a notice of eviction, which according to the petitioner was unfair and arbitrary. 4. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.12250 of 2004, not to dispossess them without due process of law. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 11.10.2004. Writ Appeal was preferred against the said order in W.A.No. 3682 of 2004, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 19.10.2004. After all these events, the petitioner by placing reliance on the communication sent by the first respondent dated 14.3.2006, has filed this Writ Petition, for a direction to the Housing Board to sell the property in their favour at a value fixed by a High Power Committee. 5. Mr.V.T.Gopalan learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the petitioner is the successor in interest and the petitioner did not suppress any facts nor acted secretively, but had disclosed their transactions to the Board. The learned senior counsel referred to the proceedings dated 17.5.2005, by which the Chief Revenue Officer of the Housing Board recommended to the Government to take a decision regarding reconveyance of the land to the petitioner in which there is reference to the developmental activity done by the petitioner. By referring to the communication dated 14.2.2006, from the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to the Managing Director of Housing Board, it is submitted that the Government has no objection for sale by Housing Board, and such sale could be in favour of the petitioner Society, and this would bind the Board. 6. By referring to the Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 7.1.2009, particularly with reference to Resolution NO.8.04, it is submitted that the Board accepted the recommendation of the High level committee to recovney the land to the erstwhile land owner and the Chairman of the petitioner Society, and having taken such a decision there is no further response, which prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition. 7. 7. The writ Petition filed by the petitioner's vendor was withdrawn since the matter pertaining to the reconveyance was kept pending solely due to the pendency of the writ petition, and after the decision of the High Power committee was approved by the Board, the Government is yet to take any decision in the matter as the petitioner has not received any communication in this regard. 8. The necessity to communicate the order is because the communication becomes an order only if it is communicated to the person concerned. In this regard, a reference was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BACHHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNBAJ reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered referring to the said decision in the case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KRIPAUL SHANKAR reported in 1987 (3) SCC 34 . 9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to plead legitimate expectation and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPPORATION Vs. S.RAGHUNATHAN reported in (1998) 7 SCC 66 . 10. Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11 6.1975, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 9.6.1978, the award was passed on 25.11.1995 and the possession was taken over by the Housing Board on 13.9.1995 and the petitioner purchased the property during 1997, much after the award and after the Board took possession of the property and the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser has no semblance of right to seek the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition. 11. By referring to the contents of the letter dated 14.3.2006, it is submitted that the order passed by the Government clearly holds that the petitioner not being the original owner of the land, there is no possibility to entertain a request for reconveyance. The last five lines as contained in the letter dated 14.3.2006, can at best be regarded as an opinion of the Government and not a mandate or a direction. 12. The last five lines as contained in the letter dated 14.3.2006, can at best be regarded as an opinion of the Government and not a mandate or a direction. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the additional counter affidavit stating that the minutes of the meeting held on 7.1.2009, was not approved in the ensuing meeting in which the minutes of the previous meeting are required to be approved to make it enforceable and when the matter came up on 2.3.2009, the minutes of the meeting held on 7.1.2009, was not confirmed and therefore, the question of forwarding the matter to the Government does not arise as no decision for reconveyance was taken by the Board. 13. It is further submitted that at no point of time, the Board gave any assurance, that if the writ petition filed by the original land owners were withdrawn, the request for reconveyance would be considered. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a society, running several educational institutions, cannot plead ignorance of the legal position. The petitioner being a rank trespasser, a person without any locus standi, cannot claim that decision should be communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the lands once vested with the State cannot be divested and in support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.CHANDRASEKARAN AND ANOTHER v. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS report in 2012 5 LW 724 (SC) and pointed out that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rupees twenty five lakhs in the said case. 14. In reply, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that originally, the Housing Board did not want the land as it was low lying at the depth of about 20 ft. and the petitioner spent substantial sums of money to fill up the land and at this juncture for the first time, in the counter affidavit it is stated that they require the lands. It is reiterated that the petitioner did not act secretively and his purchase was well within the knowledge of the respondents and the original owners were working in tandem along with the petitioners and the Government having earlier considered the request for reconveyance, there is no statutory bar for the Board to take a decision. It is reiterated that the petitioner did not act secretively and his purchase was well within the knowledge of the respondents and the original owners were working in tandem along with the petitioners and the Government having earlier considered the request for reconveyance, there is no statutory bar for the Board to take a decision. It is further submitted that only one of the members of the Board recorded his dissent and others did not do so, and therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioner's case should be positively considered. 15. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the land from the original owner during 1997, much after the award was passed. The rights of a subsequent purchaser of a land which is subject matter of acquisition proceedings has been settled, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions as referred to and relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.CHANDRASERKAR (supra) and the legal principles that could be culled out from the decisions are that any one who deals with the land subsequent to a notification under section 4 of the Act does so, at his own peril and after the notification is issued under section 4 of Act, it points out that there will be an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder. The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition and the purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. The purchase of land after publication of a section 4 notification is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person interested in compensation since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore can claim compensation. It has been further held that a person who purchases land after the publication of a section 4 notification is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason that his title is void. The petitioner admittedly being a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him any title to the property and it is void against the State. 17. The petitioner admittedly being a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him any title to the property and it is void against the State. 17. In view of the settled legal principles there is absolutely no locus standi for the petitioner to pursue his prayer for reconveyance based on a sale deed executed by the original land owners after the award was passed which purchase is null and void against the State. Therefore, the presumption of the petitioner that he has stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile land owner and the Government had no objection to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioner, are all submissions which are thoroughly misconceived and liable to be outrightly rejected. 18. In view of the legal position, there may be no necessity to examine the merits of the case of the petitioner, nevertheless, since elaborate submissions were made in this regard, this Court proposes to examine the validity of such contentions. 19. It is to be noted that the petitioners filed W.P.No.l5250 of 2004 with a prayer to forebear the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question without due process of law. This Court while dismissing the writ petition, by order dated 11.10.2004, held that the petitioner is claiming ownership of the land as a purchaser and not mere possessory right as trespasser. After considering the entire facts and the conduct of the petitioners vendors, this Court held that the petitioner cannot claim that notice should be issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. 20. The Writ Appeal preferred by the petitioner in W.A.No.3682 of 2004, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. After these proceedings attained finality in 2004, a fresh request was made by the petitioner for reconveyance and a report was submitted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated 17.5.2005. Curiously enough the Chief Revenue Officer, while accepting that the land has been validly acquired, and is vested with the State, made certain observations, regarding the construction, put up by the petitioner in the land by investing substantial money, and put up a proposal to the Government for taking a decision on the reconveyance of the land to the petitioner. Curiously enough the Chief Revenue Officer, while accepting that the land has been validly acquired, and is vested with the State, made certain observations, regarding the construction, put up by the petitioner in the land by investing substantial money, and put up a proposal to the Government for taking a decision on the reconveyance of the land to the petitioner. There is serious doubt as to the competency of the Chief Revenue Officer, to put up a proposal to the Government, directly without reference to the Board, and as per the report, there is no finding that the Chief Revenue officer is acting on the directions of the Board. 21. Be that as it may, the Government issued a letter dated 14.3.2006, addressing to the Housing Board, which appears to be starting point of the present litigation. Heavy reliance was placed on the said letter, with particular reference to last five lines in the penultimate paragraph, which states that however, considering the special circumstances of the case, the Government are of the opinion that the Housing Board may perhaps consider to sell the land to the petitioner society itself after collecting cost as per the market rate if both parties are agreeable; that the Managing Direction of Tamil Nadu Housing Board may consider to sell the land in question to the petitioner as per market rates, if both the parties agree for the same. 22. It is to be noted that the last five lines of the said communication alone should not be read, but the entire contents of the letter has to be read as a whole. If the same is done it is evidently clear that the Government have outrightly rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that it is a settled law that exclusion or withdrawal of acquisition is legally not possible and will not arise and request for reconveyance can not be entertained. If the same is done it is evidently clear that the Government have outrightly rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that it is a settled law that exclusion or withdrawal of acquisition is legally not possible and will not arise and request for reconveyance can not be entertained. It has been further stated by the Government that the land is in possession of the Housing Board and the petitioner has somehow allowed to put up unfinished structure at his own cost without any intervention by the Housing Board; that the land is very low lying and petitioner took steps to level it and he was made to understand that he would ultimately get this land for his use but the legal position is that he is not entitled for any claim over the land and any development he has made so far is only as a trespasser and not as a legal claimant, as he is the not the original owner of the land and in such circumstances it is not possible to entertain the petitioner's request for reconveryance. 23. Thus, if the entire letter dated 14.3.2006, is read it is clear that the Government rejected the petitioner's request for recovneyance. In such circumstances the petitioner cannot rely upon certain loosely worded observations in the Government letter more particularly the last five lines of paragraph No.3. In fact, the observations or opinion recorded by the Government in the last five lines is directly contradictory and clearly opposed to the stand taken in the preceding paragraphs. It is not known under what circumstances such observations were made and it is best that it is left at that stage without probing the matter further, as there is no semblance of any legal right for the petitioner to seek reconveyance. 24. The petitioner by placing reliance on the minutes of the Board meeting 7.1.2009, with reference to resolution No.8.04, submitted that the Board accepted the recommendations of the High Power Committee and forwarded it to the Government for issue of orders. 24. The petitioner by placing reliance on the minutes of the Board meeting 7.1.2009, with reference to resolution No.8.04, submitted that the Board accepted the recommendations of the High Power Committee and forwarded it to the Government for issue of orders. The original file was produced before this Court when the mater was heard on 10.2.2014, from which it was seen that though the minutes was recorded in the meeting held on 7.1.2009, the same while taken up for approval in the ensuing meeting on 2.3.2009, based on a dissent note, and amendment given by one of the members, the minutes recorded on 7.1.2009, was not confirmed. Therefore, unless and until the minutes of the meting recorded in the previous meeting is approved in the ensuing meeting, no right flows from mere recording of the minutes. The dissent note is by one of the members which has been accepted by the other members who attended the meeting on 2.3.2009, and it is the unanimous decision of the Bard to reject the minutes dated 7.1.2009, with reference to Board Resolution No. 8.04. Therefore, this Court directed the Board to file an affidavit and accordingly an affidavit has been filed by the Board, in which the dissent note has also been extracted. 25. In the light of the above factual position, no reliance can be placed on the minutes of the Board meeting held on 7.1.2009, as the said minutes was not confirmed and it did not fructify into a resolution. 26. Hence the question of communicating any order to the petitioner does not arise and the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh (Supra), and the decision in the case of Kripalu Shankar (supra), does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner. 27. It was argued that the petitioner is entitled to plead the doctrine of legitimate expectation and reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Building Construction Corporation (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the doctrine of legitimate expectation as its genesis in the field of administrative law and the Government and its department in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statement of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without an iota of abuse of discretion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the doctrine of legitimate expectation as its genesis in the field of administrative law and the Government and its department in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statement of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without an iota of abuse of discretion. The learned Senior counsel would contend that the Government are expected to not only honour their statements of policy, but intentions as well. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Kamadhenu Cattlefeed Industries reported in 1993 1 SCC 71 , held that whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is the question of fact in each case and whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may out weigh what would otherwise have been legitimate expectation of the claimant. Further, it was pointed out that the concept of legitimate expectation is 'not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shuts the court out of review on the merits', particularly when the element of speculation and uncertainty is inherent in that very concept. The petitioner rests his case on a purchase made after the award was passed in the land acquisition proceedings. Being a subsequent purchaser, they had done so at their own peril and such purchase is void against the State, their title is void and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that they are entitled to invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation. If such contentions were to be accepted, it would putting premium to the manner in which the transactions have been done and therefore, the question of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not arise. 28. If such contentions were to be accepted, it would putting premium to the manner in which the transactions have been done and therefore, the question of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not arise. 28. From the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board it is seen that in the dissent note it was pointed out that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and would not be proper to reconvey the land back to the original owners especially in the light of the fact that the original owners have subsequently sold the property to the petitioner and that the Board may examine executing some scheme or brining the land to auction in the light of the fact that the same is in a prime locality. It was further pointed out that any investment made by the petitioner on the land was at its own risks, since they knew that the land had been acquired by the Board and they cannot be rewarded for making investment on land acquired by the Government by giving the land to them. Further, from the counter affidavit it is seen that the resolution had been coming up for consideration before the Board from 2006 and the matter was deferred on more than eight earlier occasions and ultimately, the minutes dated 07.01.2009, was not approved in the meeting dated 02.03.2009. 29. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has no legal or vested right nor locus standi to seek for reconveyance of the land and the minutes of the Board meeting held on 07.01.2009, having not been approved in the ensuing meeting on 02.03.2009, but having been rejected, no resolution fructified therefrom and the Board were clear in their decision not to reconvey the land to the petitioner, who was a subsequent purchaser after the original land owners withdrew the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. The legal position was clearly set out in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.12550 of 2004, which was dismissed on 11.10.2004, confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3682 of 2004, dated 19.10.2004. The legal position was clearly set out in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.12550 of 2004, which was dismissed on 11.10.2004, confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3682 of 2004, dated 19.10.2004. After the dismissal of writ petition and writ appeal, the petitioner under the guise of seeking for reconveyance has commence the second set of proceedings which has ended in the filing of this writ petition. 30. Hence, for all the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled any relief. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.