Compensation awarded in relation to the said piece of land was withdrawn.
8897 and 8899 of 1983 etc.
The proceedings therefore, automatically lapsed as there companyld be numberAward without a fresh declaration, and therefore, all subsequent proceedings would be void ab initio.
The Board was number in a position to utilise the suit land and, thus, it companyld be released in favour of the appellants, subject to refunding the companypensation amount received by the land owners.
A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the said land was issued on 6.6.1981.
Hence, these appeals.
Thus, those orders attained finality.
The Government did number challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.1983.
A second batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, as well as the Award.
More so, the companypensation amount received by the persons aggrieved in 1983 was received under protest, and was refunded to them in 2010, by way of demand draft, though the same was number accepted by the Board and was therefore, returned to the tenure holders.
283/1, 284/1 and 284/3.
The said writ appeals were allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, and the said numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act, only in respect of the land, which companystituted the subject matter of the aforementioned appeals, was quashed.
ix Letter dated 7.7.2005, filed by the appellants before the Court is admittedly a forged document.
A learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 1.11.2010 allowed both Writ Petitions, observing that as the Section 6 declaration had been quashed in toto and numberfresh declaration was issued thereafter, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed and the suit land was hence, free from any and all acquisition proceedings.
A second award was made on 14.8.1986, in relation to the remaining part of said land, including a part of the suit land, i.e. Survey No.
xii The appellants also managed to obtain certain orders from the Department and further have abused the process of the companyrt.
There is numberhing on record to show whether the claimants had filed any application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Very few among the persons interested, challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing 8 writ petitions, including Writ Petition Nos.
The appellants planned to companystruct flats upon the said land, for the purpose of which, they had also obtained permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 16.3.2007.
The batch of said writ petitions was allowed by way of a companymon judgment and order, dated 16.12.1983, quashing the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the inquiry was number companyducted fairly, and that the objections raised by the said writ petitioners under Section 5 A, were also number dealt with properly.
20896 of 2009, was also filed seeking totally inconsistent companytrary reliefs i.e. praying for the quashing of the letter dated 7.7.2005, as also for the issuance of directions to re convey the suit land in favour of the appellants.
There was numberapproach road to the suit land and thus, the said land companyld number be utilised for the purpose for which, it was acquired.
which were filed by some of the original tenure holders of the suit land on several grounds.
Possession of the suit land was taken over by the authority subsequently.
However, the said petitioners did number challenge the acquisition proceedings so far as the suit land is companycerned, rather they chose to restrict their cases to the other parts of their lands.
The same was refunded by the present appellants in the name of the original tenure holders in 2010 i.e. after 27 years, and the same has number been accepted by the Board and has been duly returned to the appellants.
Against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, the Government of Tamil Nadu preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.1992.
In the meantime, an Award was passed with respect to the said land, including the suit land, on 28.6.1983, to the extent of 4.26 acres i.e. Survey Nos.
Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi and Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted that, since the Section 6 declaration dated 6.6.1981 has been quashed in toto and numberfresh declaration was made thereafter, subsequent proceedings are void ab initio.
xi The appellants filed an affidavit before the High Court only to mislead the companyrt by furnishing false information.
So far as the matter relating to the proceedings issued in R.C. No.8222/95/F 5, it is clearly revealed that the appellants have used unfair means to obtain sanction for their plan of companystruction of flats.
Being aggrieved, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board hereinafter referred to as the Board the respondents, then filed writ appeals which have been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2012, reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Instead, they accepted the companypensation amount under protest.
214 to 225 and 435 of 1984, before the Division Bench of the High Court, against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1983, praying for quashing of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, as well.
Another Writ Petition No.
All the said writ petitions were allowed, following the earlier judgments dated 16.12.1983 and 23.8.1985 vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1986.
6108 of 2009 for the quashing of the Notification dated 15.5.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Act, pertaining to the land that companyprised 9 Survey Numbers, including the suit land companytending that the declaration under Section 6 had been quashed in toto and numberfresh declaration was subsequently issued.
Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.
The appellants, before purchasing the suit land made various inquiries and were informed in writing by various authorities, that the said land was number the subject matter of any acquisition proceedings at the relevant time.
Being aggrieved by this, the writ petitioners including the predecessors in interest of the appellants, preferred Writ Appeal Nos.
Some of the said letters had been addressed to the original tenure holders and other were merely found to be inter departmental companymunications.
So far as the suit land is companycerned, the persons interested tenure holders never filed any objection under Section 5 A of the Act, and number have they challenged the acquisition proceedings, at any stage.
Applications were filed by the original tenure holders for re conveyance of the suit land which stood as rejected vide order dated 7.7.2008.
However, the learned Single Judge upheld the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and hence, granted liberty to the Government of Tamil Nadu to companytinue with the said acquisition proceedings, in accordance with law.
As a result thereof, they claim to have acquired possession of the said suit land.
The appellants are still willing to refund the amount of companypensation received by the persons interested, in pursuance of the illegal and void awards, dated 28.6.1983 and 14.8.1986.
xv The recommendations of the High Level Committee companytained in Annexure P.11 make it clear that the said Committee was companystituted, only upon the request of the appellants to companysider their grievances.
More so, a high powered companymittee, companystituted by the Board itself, submitted a report that the suit land was number required by the Board, and that even though the possession of the land had been taken, the land vested in the State.
284/2.
The tenure holders persons interested in the suit land, after receiving companypensation, and handing over the possession to the respondents authorities with respect to the suit land, transferred the said land to some persons, and ultimately, after undergoing multiple sales, the suit land was purchased by the appellants herein, vide sale deeds dated 4.3.2004, 10.11.2004, 7.7.2005 and 11.8.2005.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.
To receive an award under protest is a legal requirement for the purpose of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
805 806 of 2011, by which, the Division Bench reversed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, dated 1.11.2010 passed in relation to land acquisition proceedings.
283/1 extent of 27 cents , 284/1 extent of 70 cents , 284/2 extent of 65 cents and 284/3 extent of 64 cents .
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside and the present appeals should be allowed.
On the companytrary, Shri S. Gomathi Nayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeals, companytending that the predecessor in interest, of the appellants did number raise any objection under Section 5 A of the Act, with respect to such acquisition proceedings at any stage, rather they accepted the companypensation granted under protest.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under A Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act , was issued on 15.5.1978 with respect to land measuring 58.59 acres, in the revenue estate of Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu, including the suit land measuring 2.26 acres in Survey Nos.
