1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.4730 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 & 3 of 2011 1.C.Sekar 2.T.Seeniammal 3.K.C.Jeevanantha Bose 4.S.Sakthivel 5.M.Muthupandi 6.M.Ramasamy 7.P.Shanmugam 8.N.Irulappan 9.G.Annamalai 10.S.Sivanammal 11.S.George Ammal 12.K.Maragatham Ammal 13.E.Pathirakali 14.I.Sudalai Nadar 15.R.Gopala Krishnan 16.A.Mahalingam 17.M.Jeyaseelan 18.S.Kanaga Sabai ... Petitioners -Vs-. 1.The Secretary to the Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. 3.The Executive Engineer-cum- Administrative Officer, Tirunelveli Housing Board Unit, Tirunelveli. 4.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ...Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned publication made by the third respondent vide bt/M/vz; : 3/2011/jpyp/xg[/tp/dated 06.01.2011 in respect of property situated at Sankaraperi Village, Thoothukudi District and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to cause intrusion upon the petitioners' peaceful possession, enjoyment and right over their property. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Anand O R D E R The petitioners, who are the erstwhile and recent purchasers of the property from the original owners, have come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned publication of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for allotment of lands. 2. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has originally initiated the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and accordingly, Section 4(1) notification, dated 26.06.1985, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.631, 607 and 628, was issued for the Neighbourhood Scheme and subsequently, even though objections were made by the original owners, Section 6 declaration has been made vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1171, 1172 and 1173, Housing Urban Development Department dated 29.07.1986. Following this, the fourth respondent, under Section 11 of the above said Act, has passed award proceedings No.1/88, 2/88 and 3/88, dated 29.07.1988, and the amount has also been duly disbursed to the original owners. The only contention raised by the petitioners now is that one P.Ramadoss and 14 others have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10939 to 10941 of 1987 challenging Section 4(1) notification, Section 6 Declaration and the consequential award proceedings. This Court, by order dated 03.03.1997, has allowed all the above said writ petitions on the ground that Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules has not been complied with before issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the above said Act. Subsequently, one another P.Gunavathi and three others and T.Dharmar and four others and one P.Pathalamuthu Nadar and five others have filed separate writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10716, 10717 and 10718 of 1988. Following the earlier order of this Court, all these writ petitions also were allowed. So, according to the petitioners, Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration have been quashed by this Court in the above said writ petitions and in view of the order passed in the above writ petitions, automatically, the entire property which has been acquired under the above said Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 Declaration have been released. Therefore, the third and fourth respondents have no control over the property and as such, the present notification made in the publication seeking the property to be allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is non est in the eye of law. Hence, they have challenged the publication made by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent on 06.01.2011 in this writ petition. In fact, earlier, an association filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4327 of 2011, in which the petitioners were members, was withdrawn as its maintainability itself was questioned. But, since the individual right has been safeguarded, they have come forward with the present writ petition individually challenging the publication made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for allotment of properties as per notification in respect of earlier acquisition. 3. Even at the time of admission, the learned Government Pleader has raised a question as regards the maintainability of the writ petition and this Court has also specifically raised a question as to whether the writ petitioners or their predecessors-in-title have challenged the original Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. The petitioners have fairly submitted that neither their predecessors-in-title nor the petitioners have ever challenged the original Section 4(1) notification or Section 6 declaration. Insofar as their property is concerned, Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration and award proceedings has become final. But, what they would now contend is that in view of certain others who have filed the writ petition challenging Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration which was allowed in their favour, the same would enure to the benefit of the petitioners' predecessors-in-title also. Unfortunately, it cannot be so. In fact, the petitioners have produced the order copy passed in W.P.No.10939 to 10941 of 1987. From a reading of the prayer in the main writ petition itself, it is very clear that the petitioners therein have challenged Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration and sought quashing of the same insofar as in respect of those petitioners are concerned only and also insofar as Survey Nos.125/1 and 122/1A in Sankaraperi Village, Tuticorin Taluk. Therefore, the original application which was filed and allowed by this Court was only insofar as the petitioners therein are concerned. Subsequently, this order was followed in W.P.Nos.10716 to 10718 of 1988. There also, it is very clearly stated that it is sought to be questioned only insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the present argument of the petitioners that in view of the fact that finally, the impugned notifications are quashed and set aside in respect of some of those petitioners would mean the entire notification itself has been quashed and it will enure to the benefit of the petitioners' predecessors-in-title as well, is illegal and not sustainable. The prayers as sought by the petitioners in those cases were granted because in that case certain procedural irregularities were pointed out by those petitioners. Merely because a few have questioned the same and pursuant to the same, this Court quashed the order, that will not enure to the benefit of the other persons also. Admittedly, the present petitioners or their predecessors-in-title have not challenged Section4(1) notification or Section 6 declaration and in this case, the award proceedings were passed long ago in 19.08.1998 and merely because the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has now chosen to bring the property to public auction, it is no more open to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 petitioners to say that the award itself has been cancelled and hence, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has no authority at all to bring the property for auction. Yet another ground raised by the petitioners is that in the publication, the description of the property was not properly given. Whereas, from a reading of the notification, it is crystal clear that it categorically states that it is situated in the scheme area, the vacant site. The relevant portion of the said notification is extracted as under: "jpUbey;ntyp t Pl ;Ltrjpg;gphptpw;F cl;gl;l : J}j;Jf ;Fo khtl;lk; r';fug;nghp rpwpa kw;Wk ; eLj;ju efu mikg;g [ jpl;lg ;gFjpapy; cs;s nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l fhyp kidfs; FYf;fy; Kiwapy; xJf;f PL bra;tjw;fhf bghJkf;fsplkpUe;J tpz;zg ;g' ;fs ; tuntw;fg ;gLfpd;wd." 4. Admittedly, the petitioners have purchased the property, as per their affidavit, in the year 1981-82 and they were the owners at that point of time and they have not raised their little finger during the relevant period of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Secretary to the Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. 3.The Executive Engineer -cum- Administrative Officer, Tirunelveli Housing Board Unit, Tirunelveli. 4.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Neighbourhood Scheme, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4730 of 2011and MP(MD)No.2 & 3 /2011 13.06.2011 srm SMA/17.06.2011/5C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/