Disposed

Ali Arshad, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC28 Apr 2021WP/3612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of eight writ petitions by issuing a directed order. The court directed the respondents, specifically the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, to consider specific queries (10 and 11) raised in a joint representation dated 18.01.2017 by the petitioners regarding land development objections, after hearing them, within a period of twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to hear the petitioners and decide the queries related to the joint representation dated 18.01.2017 within twelve weeks.

Ali Arshad, Vs The Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.Nos.3612 to 3619 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.4440 to 4447 of 2018

¶6

Ali Arshad ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3612 of 2018 Mohamed Arif ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3613 of 2018 Mohamed Irfan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3614 of 2018 Shafeequa Banu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3615 of 2018 Mohamed Furkhan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3616 of 2018 Naheed Fathima ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3617 of 2018 Mohamed Faizan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3618 of 2018 Ali Asghar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3619 of 2018 -Vs1. The Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.33, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035. ...Respondents in all the writ petitions Prayer in W.P.Nos.3612 to 3619 of 2018 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the acquisition proceedings for S.No.259/2 of Mogappair Village, Thiruvallur has been lapsed in view of the order passed in SLP No.11353-55 of 1988 and by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013.

¶7

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel in all the writ petitions for Mr.M.Sriram

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai, AGP for R1 in all the writ petitions

¶9

Mr.Baskar for R2

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

The prayer sought for in all these writ petitions is for a writ of declaration, declaring that the acquisition proceedings for S.No.259/2 of Mogappair Village, Thiruvallur has been lapsed in view of the order passed in SLP No.11353-55 of 1988 and by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ReSettlement Act, 2013.

¶13

2. Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions and the prayer sought for in all these writ petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶14

3. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, at the outset has submitted that, though a larger prayer has been sought for in these writ petitions, now, on instructions from the respective petitioners, he has confined to the prayer only to the extent that, the joint representation given by these petitioners on 18.01.2017 to the respondent, i.e., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, insofar as Query Nos.10 and 11 are concerned, can be directed to be considered on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners concerned and pass orders suitably thereon within a time frame and if such a direction is given to the respondent, the petitioners would be satisfied, he contended.

¶15

2. According to him, the background facts of these batch of writ petitions, in nutshell, are as follows:

¶16

2.1. That the land in question, i.e., Survey No.259/2 to the extent of 0.50 acre at Mogappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District is the subject matter, which belongs to the petitioners. In the year 1975, i.e., on 23.10.1975 a land acquisition proceedings was initiated, i.e., 4(1) notification was issued, subsequently on 10.11.1978 the land in question was sought to be acquired and accordingly a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act also was issued.

¶17

2.2. In this regard, it is to be noted that, well before the 4(1) notification was issued, the land in question had already been approved as an Approved Layout by the competent authority by proceedings dated 21.04.1975.

¶18

2.3. In view of the said fact that before 4(1) Notification, since the land in question have been approved as a layout by the competent authority, the Government thought it fit to give up the acquisition proceedings pursuant to a Government Order in this regard in G.O.Ms.No.413, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 03.03.1979, which was issued prohibiting the land acquisition activities in respect of the lands which have been approved as a layout by the competent authorities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

2.4. By virtue of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.413, as per the policy decision of the State Government, no further persuasive action has been taken by the respondents either by the Acqusition Authority or the Requisition Authority and infact no enquiry was conducted and no award was passed, virtually the land acquisition proceedings, though was completed with 6 declaration, has not been further persuaded and literally it was dropped by the respondents.

¶20

2.5. Thereafter, no further land acquisition proceedings has ever been issued in respect of the land in question.

¶21

3. Only in that context, the petitioners since have already got the approval of the layout in the land in question from the competent authority, they wanted to develop the land. In order to develop the land further, they wanted NOC from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in whose favour the land in question was sought to be acquired as stated supra and accordingly, these petitioners had given a joint representation on 18.01.2017, where they have raised several queries to be answered, out of which, now the learned Senior Counsel confined only with regard to Query Nos.10 and 11 and if those queries are taken into account and accordingly, if the said request made in Query Nos.10 and 11 in the representation dated 18.01.2017 are directed to be considered by the respondents, i.e. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on merits within a time frame, the petitioners would be satisfied, the learned Senior counsel contended.

¶22

4. I have heard Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Baskar, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent Housing Board.

¶23

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, if the petitioners have confined with the prayer only to that extent to consider the representation dated 18.01.2017, that too, with regard to Query Nos.10 and 11 alone, certainly, the said request of the petitioners would be considered and necessary orders to that effect would be passed within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶25

7. As has been stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, since the petitioners have confined only to the Query Nos.10 and 11 of the representation dated 18.01.2017, in order to appreciate the same, the relevant Query, i.e., Query Nos.10 and 11 at the representation of the petitioners are extracted hereunder:

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

"10) g [ y vz ; /259-2 - gug ; g [ 0/50 Vf ; fh ; epyk ; tUtha ; j ; Jiw hpf ; fhh ; Lfshd gl ; lh. rpl ; lh. ml' ; fy ; nghd ; wtw ; wpy ; jkpH ; ehL tPl ; Ltrjp thhpaj ; jpd ; bgahpy ; cs ; sjh? kw ; Wk ; giHa g [ y vz ; /259-2 f ; F jw ; nghija g [ jpa lt [ d ; rh ; nt vz ; zpw ; Fhpa efu epy msit hpf ; fhl ; oy ; tPl ; Ltrjp thhpaj ; jpd ; bgahpy ; cs ; sjh vd ; w tptuk ; tH' ; ft [ k ; /

¶28

11) g [ y vz ; /259-2 - gug ; g [ 0/50 Vf ; fh ; epyj ; jpw ; F v' ; fs bgahpy ; fpiuag ; gj ; jpuk ; gjpt [ bra ; J. v' ; fsJ bgahpy ; gl ; lh cs ; s kidapy ; fl ; ol ntiyfs ; bra ; tjw ; F tPl ; Ltrjp thhpaj ; jpw ; F VnjDk ; Ml ; nrgid cs ; sjh my ; yJ ,y ; iyah vd bjhptpf ; Fk ; go nfl ; Lf ; bfhs ; sg ; gLfpwJ/"

¶29

8. Only pertaining to these two issues, the petitioners now want their representation dated 18.01.2017 to be considered by the respondents and in this regard, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, if the respondents are able to dispose of this said queries on merits within a time frame and a direction to that effect is issued by this Court, petitioners would be satisfied.

¶30

9. In the said queries raised by the petitioners, what they sought for is, whether the land in question, i.e., Survey No.259/2 to the extent of 0.50 acres stands in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and if at all the petitioners desire to develop the land as they already obtained the layout permission long back in the said land in question, whether the respondent Housing Board will have any objection. Only in respect of these two queries, the plea of the petitioners can very well be considered and a disposal can be given on those queries by deciding the joint representation given by the petitioners dated 18.01.2017.

¶31

10. If such a direction is given by this Court to the respondents to decide the same as indicated above, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as only after hearing the petitioners, a suitable decision can be taken with regard to those two issues raised by the petitioners in their representation within a time frame on merits and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following orders:

¶32

(i) That there shall be a direction to the respondents, especially the second respondent to consider the joint representation of the petitioners, dated 18.01.2017 and decide the same insofar as Query Nos.10 and 11 as quoted herein above alone, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, by giving separate notices to them and after hearing them, a final decision can be taken and communicated

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

to each of the petitioners.

¶35

(ii) The aforesaid needful shall be undertaken and completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

11. With these directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsvn/sgl
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Housing & Urban Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.33, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.26373
W.P.Nos.3612 to 3619 of 2018

¶38

SR II(CO) GMY(08/07/2021)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ali Arshad, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Arshad, v. The Secretary to Government

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

Mr.M.Sridaran, Vs the District Collector

V.K.Rajasekaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.K.Rajasekaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Kasthuri Vs Sivakumar

Kuppammal Vs The Tahsildar

Tamil Nadu Telecom Contract Workers Union, Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.