T.R.Boopalan & Ors vs T.Nadu State Hng.Board And Ors

2. The appellants herein claim to be the owners of a plot of land measuring 0.81 acres comprised in Survey No.188/4 in Thiruvanmiyur village falling under Chengalpattu District, now part of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. The said 2 land which was the subject matter of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the L.A.Act", issued pursuant to G.O.MS 36/Housing, published by the Tamil Nadu Government in the Official Gazette on 19.2.1975. It is the case of the appellants that on 28.3.1983 an Award was made in respect of the said lands which was registered in the name of the appellants.

3. In 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.16207 of 1991 challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres. According to the appellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No.188/4 of the aforesaid village was quashed. It appears that thereafter it was discovered by the appellants that through inadvertence the measurement of the land had 3 been shown in the writ petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and an application was thereupon made before the High Court to correct the mistake and to amend the relief in respect of 0.81 cents to 0.81 acres since there was no dispute regarding the same and the correct figure had been mentioned both by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu. The said application for amendment of the relief was dismissed on 23.2.1999 by the High Court on the ground of laches.

4. Subsequently, the appellant applied to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for issuance of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.188/4 to enable the appellants to raise construction thereupon. It appears from the records that an inquiry was conducted into the status of the land and in a report received from the District Revenue Officer, LA, Tamil Nadu 4 Housing Board Schemes, it was revealed that the Government machinery was hesitant to take any further action to question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court allowing the appellants' writ petition. On the basis of the above, the appellants appear to have made an application to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the lands comprised in Survey No.188/4 for the purpose of raising constructions thereupon. As the same was rejected, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition before the Madras High Court, being Writ Petition No.272 of 2000, on 10.1.2000, for a direction upon the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the aforesaid land consequent upon the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the 5 representation of the appellants and to pass orders in accordance with law.

5. The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed on 10th April, 2003, on the ground of delay. As the matter was not proceeded with further, the order of the learned Single Judge became final between the parties. The appeal filed by the Respondent No.2 was also dismissed. Thereafter, on 13th February, 2004, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board offered to give a "No Objection Certificate" to the appellants for 0.81 cents only.

7. The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board preferred Writ Appeal No. 547 of 2005 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench on 31st January, 2007, upon holding, inter alia, that the appellants herein were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land indicated in the Single Judge's order and that equity could not be applied to one of the parties alone. The Division Bench also held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the appellants' application for amending the said order which had also attained finality as no appeal had been preferred against the same.

13. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned senior advocate, attempted to justify the view taken by the Division Bench upon holding that the prayer made in the Writ Petition by the appellants herein had been granted and they could therefore have no grievance on such score. In fact, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board had offered and was always willing to grant the "No Objection Certificate" in respect of 0.81 cents of land in respect of which the petitioner's Writ Petition had been allowed. 11

15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High court in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein.

16. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land comprised in Survey No. 188/4 measures 0.81 acres. There is also no dispute that in deciding the Writ Petition 13 filed by the appellants challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of Survey No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said notification was quashed.

1. In our view, the two above-mentioned cases stand on different footings and cannot be compared. Furthermore, there is force in Mr. Sundaram's other limb of submission that when the Notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, with regard to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in respect of the entire lands comprising 0.81 acres, there was no reason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of "No Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in the Writ Petition. Since the entire lands stood released from the acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to apply for "No Objection Certificate" in respect of same but the Respondent No.1, for reasons best known to it, chose to confine itself only to the area of land mentioned in the Writ Petition, which according to us was clearly an unintended error.

1. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the decision of the Division Bench, which is set aside. We, therefore, restore the decision of the learned Single Judge by which the Writ Petition was allowed. 17

1. The present appeal is, accordingly allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.

...................J (ALTAMAS KABIR) ...................J (MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated: August 7, 2008