Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3801 (MAD)

Government of Tamil Nadu v. P. Jayaraman

2015-12-18

P.DEVADASS, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
Judgment :- Common Judgment: P. Devadass, J. As these three Writ Appeals are directed as against common order of the Writ Court and common factual matrix is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These three Writ Appeals, at the instance of the respondents/ Government arises out of the common order of the Writ Court dated 21.7.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1998 whereunder the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act and all consequential proceedings are quashed, giving liberty to the Government to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of the said Act, if the Government so desires. 3. The Government acquired certain piece of lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, situate in Gajjal Naickenpattai Village in Salem District for a public purpose. The said lands belonged to one Padmanabha Chettiyar. His three sons, namely, P.Jayaraman, Dr.P.Krishnamurthy and P.Soundararajan by an oral partition said to have divided the properties among themselves. They have filed the present writ petitions challenging the said land acquisition proceedings. Their details are as follows:- S.No. Name of the petitioner WP No. Survey No. Extent of land Present Writ Appeal No. 1. P.Jayaraman 16132/1998 78/1A2 0.73.0 Hectares 2532/2013 2. Dr.P.Krishnamoorthy 16133/1998 78/1B2 0.74.0 Hectares 2533/2013 3. P.Soundararajan 16134/1998 78/1C2 062.5 Hectares 2534/2013 4. In the Writ Court, they have contended that when the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made, their father Padmanabha Chettiyar was not alive, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not made within one year and no proper publication by tom-tom has been made. 5. The Government repelled the contentions. 6. On 21.7.2009, the Writ Court, by a common order, allowed the writ petitions mainly on the ground that when the notification under Section 4(1) was made, the land owner Padmanabha Chettiyar since was not alive, the notification made as against a dead person is invalid. 7. 5. The Government repelled the contentions. 6. On 21.7.2009, the Writ Court, by a common order, allowed the writ petitions mainly on the ground that when the notification under Section 4(1) was made, the land owner Padmanabha Chettiyar since was not alive, the notification made as against a dead person is invalid. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that already the very same petitioners have filed W.P.No.13139 of 1997, challenging the land acquisition proceedings and on 19.2.1998, their writ petition was dismissed and it was not set aside in a manner known to law, however, again they have filed W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1998, raising similar contentions, thus, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert the said arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General. 9. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents, perused the orders of the Writ Court dated 19.2.1998 in W.P.No.13139 of 1997, common order dated 21.7.2009 of the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1997 and the materials on record. 10. The Writ Appeals are to be allowed on a short point. Earlier the present writ petitioners have filed W.P.No.13139 of 1997 challenging the notification made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 19.2.1998, the said writ petition was dismissed. The said order was not set aside by any Court. Thus, the said order has become final. However, the petitioners in the said writ petition have again filed the three writ petitions, namely W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1998 for the very same relief and sought for quashment of the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. In those writ petitions, they have not at all mentioned the order of dismissal dated 19.2.1998 passed by this Court in the previous writ petition in W.P.No.13139 of 1997. In the circumstances as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1998 are not maintainable. 11. Thus, these Writ Appeals are allowed. W.P.Nos.16132 to 16134 of 1997 are dismissed as not maintainable. The common order dated 21.7.2009 of the Writ Court is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.