Allowed

Mr.C.Rajasekar v. the Secretary

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP/16065/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a letter from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board directing the Sub-Registrar not to register documents concerning the property, as the land acquisition proceedings had effectively lapsed due to the authority's failure to initiate a fresh Section 5-A enquiry within the stipulated six-month period. The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to entertain the registration without insisting

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter dated 23.11.2020 quashed; Fifth Respondent directed to entertain registration within 15 days without insisting on NOC.

Mr.C.Rajasekar Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.16065 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.17574 of 2024

C.Rajasekar

... Petitioner

1.The Secretary

¶11

Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St. George

¶12

Chennai - 600 009

¶13

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Salem Housing Board Division) Aiyyanthiru Maaligai

¶14

Opp. Collector Bungalow, Salem - 636 008

¶15

3.TheThasildar (Land Acquisition) Salem Housing Board Neighbouring Scheme Aiyyanthiru Maaligai Opp. Collector Bungalow Salem - 636 008

¶16

4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer

¶17

Page 1/9

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶19

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶20

Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Salem Housing Board Division) Salem - 636 008

¶21

5.The Joint-I Sub-Registrar Salem (West) District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex 3rd Floor, Salem - 636 008 ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in impugned Letter No. Ne.A.1/4280/03 dated 23.11.2020 on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to entertain registration of transactions relating to the property bearing Plot No.44, measuring an extent of 1890 sq.ft. comprised in Sy. No.95/3 of Ayyamperumal Patti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Elayaraj Kumar for M/s.Ramalingam & Associates For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.C.Kalaichelvan for R4 Mr.B.Vijay, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R5

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶26

_______ Page 2/9_

¶27

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶28

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned Letter No. Ne.A.1/4280/03 dated 23.11.2020 on the file of the fourth respondent and consequently direct the 5th respondent to entertain registration of transactions relating to the property bearing Plot No.44, measuring an extent of 1890 sq.ft. comprised in Sy.No.95/3 of Ayyamperumal Patti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District.

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

3. The petitioner states that when he approached the fifth respondent for registration of documents relates to the property in question, the same was not accepted on the ground that some time in November 2020, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has sent a communication to the said Sub-Registrar Office not to entertain any document pertaining to the land in question in the writ petition

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶32

_______ Page 3/9_

¶33

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶34

at Ayyanperumal Patti Village, Salem Taluk and District. Challenging the same,

¶35

the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶36

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though the lands in question were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the Tamil

¶37

Nadu Housing Board, at the stage of 5-A enquiry, the same was challenged before this Court and after succeeding before the Writ Court, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board or State of Tamil Nadu preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.158 of

¶38

1999, which came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26.09.2008, whereby the 5-A enquiry was set aside, however, a liberty was given to the respondents therein to proceed with the fresh 5-A enquiry within a period of six months.

¶39

5. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, no such proceedings were initiated and no 5-A enquiry was conducted for long years and no action has been taken by the respondents to conduct 5-A enquiry and six months period given by the Division Bench was also lapsed long back.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _______ Page 4/9_

¶41

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶42

6. This position has been confirmed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Additional Charge, Salem, who has also acted as a Public Information Officer under RTI Act. The Special Tahsildar, through his communication dated 14.03.2023 stating that a perusal of records it seen that 5-A enquiry has been conducted. Relying upon this communication, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, the respondents have not proceeded to take a fresh 5-A enquiry as directed by the Division Bench of this Court within the six months period. Therefore, on their part, they have not acted upon, hence, the land acquisition proceedings, in view of the quashment of the 5-A enquiry has become a standstill. By thus, the land in question can very well be meddled with or encumbered with by the title holders of the property and in this regard, when similar situation arose, some of the affected parties filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.No.15154 of 2020 as well as W.P.No.26809 of 2021, those writ petitions were also ordered by the respective learned Judges of this Court and since the petitioner is similarly placed, he is entitled to get his documents presented before the Sub~Registrar to be registered, if they are otherwise in order.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶44

_______ Page 5/9_

¶45

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶46

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent have made some attempts by making submissions stating that it was not the quashment of the land acquisition proceedings and only the 5-A enquiry was quashed or set aside. Therefore, liberty was given to the parties concerned to proceed with the fresh 5-A enquiry. Whether the 5-A enquiry was conducted or not could not be ascertained, merely because the documents are not available to establish that the 5-A enquiry subsequently has been proceeded, the land acquisition proceedings ipso facto cannot be treated as a lapsed one or quashed one and therefore, on that ground, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition.

¶47

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the 5-A enquiry was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court and liberty was given to the respondents to proceed with 5-A enquiry afresh and a time limit also has been prescribed i.e., six months period, admittedly no 5-A notice has been given and this is evident from the latest communication given by the Special Tahsildar dated 28.01.2020 under the RTI

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶49

_______ Page 6/9_

¶50

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶51

Act to the effect that no notice has been given and no 5-A enquiry has been initiated.

¶52

9. That being so, at this length of time, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot seek any claim over the property in question. Therefore, the letter sent on 23.11.2020 to the Sub-Registrar could no way impact the Sub-Registrar from entertaining the document presented by the petitioner for registering the same.

¶53

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned letter of the fourth respondent dated 23.11.2020 is quashed and the fifth respondent is directed to entertain registration of the transactions without insisting any NOC from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and without citing that reason as one of the reasons for refusing the registration, within a period of fifteen days from the

¶54

date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶55

26.07.2024

¶56

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶58

_______ Page 7/9_

¶59

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶60

¶61

1.The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

¶62

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Salem Housing Board Division) Aiyyanthiru Maaligai Opp. Collector Bungalow, Salem - 636 008

¶63

3.TheThasildar (Land Acquisition) Salem Housing Board Neighbouring Scheme Aiyyanthiru Maaligai Opp. Collector Bungalow Salem - 636 008

¶64

4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Salem Housing Board Division) Salem - 636 008

¶65

5.The Joint-I Sub-Registrar Salem (West) District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex 3rd Floor, Salem - 636 008

¶66

6.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

¶68

_______ Page 8/9_

¶69

W.P. No.16065 of 2024

¶70

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶71

Asr

¶72

W.P.No.16065 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.17574 of 2024

¶73

26.07.2024

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _______ Page 9/9_

Mr.C.Rajasekar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Rajasekar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Subathra Devi, Vs the Sub Registrar

K.Mani Vs the District Registrar

Usha Rangarajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.a.Thirumagal Vs The Secretary to Government

A.Singaravelu Vs the Distict Collector

Thamruddin Vs the Inspector General of Registration