Dismissed

K.Chinnathambi v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP/1336/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition seeking a writ of declaration to quash a sale deed executed after the issue of a Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that such a sale is a civil contract contestable in civil courts, not via writ.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the sale deed null and void was not allowed.

K.Chinnathambi Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

WP No.1336 of 2003

¶7

K.Chinnathambi ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector, Erode District at Erode. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Chennimalai Road, Kangeyam, Erode District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registration, Vellakoil, Erode District. 4. The Sub-Registrar, Kangeyam, Erode District. 5. S.M.Palanisamy 6. Thangaraj 7. Chenniappan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Sale Deed, dated 24.7.2002, executed by the 6^th respondent in favour of the 7^th respondent in the office of the respondents 3 and 4 as null and void.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For RR1 to 4 : Mr.S.Gunasekar Additional Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

It is seen that on the proposal submitted by the second

¶13

respondent, the Government had issued notification under Section 4(1) of

¶14

¶15

the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands in survey no.778/3-B for the Welfare of Adi Dravidar people for construction of house sites for them. Challenging the said 4(1) notification, one S.M.Palanisamy, who is said to be the aggrieved land owner, filed WP No.3168 of 1988, which was dismissed by this Court on 13.01.1995. While so, it is alleged by the petitioner that S.M.Palanisamy had sold the land under acquisition to one Thangaraj (the sixth respondent), who, in turn, had sold the land to Chenniappan (the 7^th respondent herein). Therefore, the petitioner, who is said to be the beneficiary in the land acquisition, is before this Court for a declaration, to declare the sale deed dated 24.07.2002 executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the seventh respondent as null and void.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once Section 4(1)(a) notification is issued, all subsequent sale is bad in law and therefore, the sixth respondent ought not to have sold the land to the seventh respondent.

¶18

In the considered opinion of this Court, though such transfers are not legally correct, yet, a writ of declaration cannot be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, because, the sale by the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent is a contract, which is assailable in civil proceedings. The petitioner has nothing to do with the sale and cannot seek to quash the

¶19

¶20

sale deed entered into between the sixth respondent and seventh respondent, just because he is a prospective beneficiary under the Land Acquisition scheme. It is for the Government to acquire the lands in accordance with law and allot the same to various beneficiaries in accordance with the scheme framed by the Government. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the sale deed is not sustainable.

¶21

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of

merits. No costs.

08.12.2016

kmi

The District Collector, Erode District at Erode.

¶27

The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Chennimalai Road, Kangeyam, Erode District.

¶28

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registration, Vellakoil, Erode District.

¶29

The Sub-Registrar,

¶30

Kangeyam, Erode District.

¶31

The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH, J. kmi

WP No.1336 of 2003

08.12.2016

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Chinnathambi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chinnathambi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Tussor Machine Tools India Vs State of Tamil Nadu

The Management of Thiruvarur Vs N.Murugaiyan,S/O.Nagappa

A.Jawahar Vs the Station Direcotr, Madras

A/M.Rudraksha Easwar Thirukoil Vs Commissioner of Land Admn.

Maha Beach Trading Company Vs the Chief Secretary

K.Nachimuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police