Dismissed¶85

V. Venkatesan 4, 21ST East v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC7 Mar 2025WP/33888/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions dismissed; Land Acquisition Act 1894; Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.7.1978 G.O.Ms.No.1096 Housing and Urban Development; Section 6 Declaration 06.8.1981; award 23.9.1986; Section 16 vesting in Government; subsequent purchaser; sale after notification null and void; purchaser as trespasser; Land & Building Department v. Attro Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302; Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Thiruvanmiyur Survey No.105/3A part; G.O.Ms.No.247 dated 23.12.2024 withdrawal of acquisition; Mandamus refused; Article 226; Madras High Court; N. Anand Venkatesh J.

What did the court decide?

There is no dispute that the orders in W.P.No.1478 of 1982 (dated 05.9.1983) and W.P.No.10902 of 1989 (dated 15.11.1989) relied upon by the petitioners do not relate to the subject property but to other properties. ¶61

V. Venkatesan 4, 21ST East Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶85

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be forbidden by way of Mandamus from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 3,600 sq.ft. property in Survey No.105/3 (now 105/3A part), Thiruvanmiyur, relying on the 1978 Section 4(1) Notification (W.P.No.33888 of 2007). +3 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶61

Key takeaways

After the award was passed (dated 23.9.1986) pursuant to providing an opportunity to the original land owner, Section 16 of the Act came into play and the subject property absolutely vested with the Government.ratio¶73
The sale in favour of the petitioners is null and void because it took place after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act.ratio¶77
Applying the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Land & Building Department v. Attro Devi (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302), if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property they can be considered only as trespassers.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh J., delivered 07.3.2025, reserved 03.3.2025) dismissed W.P.Nos.33888 of 2007 and 26821 of 2008 filed by purchasers of 3,600 sq.ft. in Survey No.105/3 (now 105/3A part), Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai, who acquired the property from original owner Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa by registered sale deed dated 12.4.2007 (doc.No.3159 of 2007) after civil proceedings (specific performance decree in O.S.No.534 of 1997 dated 21.3.2003, confirmed in A.S.No.9 of 2004 dated 28.2.2005; compromise in S.A.No.882 of 2006). The land had been acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.7.1978 in G.O.Ms.No.1096 Housing and Urban Development, Section 6 Declaration published 06.8.1981, and award dated 23.9.1986 fixing compensation of Rs.8,042/- (Rs.18,295/- with solatium and market value increase). The Court found no dispute that the earlier quashing orders (W.P.No.1478 of 1982 dated 05.9.1983, confirmed in W.A.No.479 of 1985 dated 08.7.1985; W.P.No.10902 of 1989 dated 15.11.1989) related to other survey numbers, not the subject property. Holding that after the award Section 16 of the Act operated and the property absolutely vested in the Government, and that the 2007 sale after the Section 4 Notification was null and void, the Court applied Land & Building Department through Secretary & another v. Attro Devi & Others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302) to hold the petitioners could at best be treated as trespassers. A passing observation permitted them to make a representation for consideration of dropping the property under G.O.Ms.No.247 Housing & Urban [LA-2(2)] Department dated 23.12.2024, expressly creating no new right. Both writ petitions and connected M.Ps. dismissed, no costs.

¶1

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶3

Reserved on Delivered on : 03.3.2025 07.3.2025

¶4

Coram :

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2008

¶7

1.V.Venkatesan 2.V.Shankar 3.V.Sudha

¶8

...Petitioners in both the WPs

¶9

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶11

2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep.by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

¶12

3.The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

¶13

...Respondents in both WPs

¶14

PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying

¶15

for the issuance of

¶16

(i) a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any

¶17

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

¶18

1/14

¶19

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶20

way interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in survey No.105/3 (now Survey No. 105/3A part), Thiruvanmiyur Village and bearing Door No.4, 21st East Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 and more fully described in the schedule to the accompanying petition in any manner whatsoever relying upon the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 09.8.1978, which has been set aside by this Court by judgment dated 15.11.1989 in W.P.No.10902 of 1989 -

¶21

South Madras Registrar's Office, Saidapet Sub-Registrar I, Mylapore - Triplicane Taluk, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Kamaraj Nagar, 21st East Street, door No.4, survey No.105/3, presently survey No.105/3A (part), measuring 3,600 sq.ft. bounded on the north by Pandarinathan's plot and house; south by 40 feet road; east by Kothandaraman's plot; and west by Sriram flats, measuring east to west on the north 40 feet, east to west on the south 40 feet, north to south on the east 90 feet and north to south on the west 90 feet (WP.No.33888 of 2007); and

¶22

(ii) a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) the of Land Acquisition Act 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.1096 Housing and Urban Development dated 17.7.1978

¶23

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

¶24

2/14

¶25

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶26

and pursuant to the Notification under Section (6) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in view of the decision in W.P.No.1478 of1982 dated 05.9.1983 (confirmed in W.A.No.479 of 1985 dated 08.7.1985) and in view of the decision in W.P.No.10902 of 1989 dated 15.11.1989 thereby forfeiting the schedule mentioned land -

¶27

South Madras Registrar's Office, Saidapet Sub-Registrar I, Mylapore - Triplicane Taluk, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Kamaraj Nagar, 21st East Street, door No.4, survey No.105/3, presently survey No.105/3A (part), measuring 3,600 sq.ft. bounded on the north by Pandarinathan's plot and house; south by 40 feet road; east by Kothandaraman's plot; and west by Sriram flats, measuring east to west on the north 40 feet, measuring east to west on the south 40 feet, measuring north to south on the east 90 feet and measuring north to south on the west 90 feet totally measuring an extent of 3,600 sq.ft. (WP.No.26821 of 2008).

¶28

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For R1 & R3 : Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP For R2 : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal Standing Counsel

¶29

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

¶30

3/14

¶31

COMMON ORDER

¶32

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶33

W.P.No.33888 of 2007 has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 3,600 sq.ft. in Survey No.105/3, New Survey No.105/3A Part, Thiruvanmiyur Village bearing door No.4, 21st East Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

¶34

W.P.No.26821 of 2008 has been filed challenging the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) and the Declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in view of the order passed in W.P.No.1478 of1982 dated 05.9.1983, which was confirmed in W.A.No.479 of 1985 dated 08.7.1985 and in view of the decision in W.P.No.10902 of 1989 dated 15.11.1989.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶36

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

¶37

4/14

¶38

The case of the petitioners is as follows :

¶39

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶40

(i) The property measuring an extent of 10.5 cents in Survey No.105/3A Part at Thiruvanmiyur Village was owned by one Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa along with other vast extent of lands. Apart from other lands, the said property became the subject matter of acquisition through a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 17.7.1978. Subsequently, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06.8.1981.

¶41

(ii) At the first instance, the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa along with his brother filed W.P.No.1478 of 1982 before this Court seeking to quash the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act and it was allowed by order dated 05.9.1983, however, leaving the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 17.7.1978 intact. This order was confirmed on appeal by the State in W.A.No.479 of 1985 vide judgment dated 08.7.1985.

¶42

(iii) Subsequently, the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa filed another writ petition in W.P.No.10902 of 1989 before this Court challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 17.7.1978. W.P.No.10902 of 1989 was filed for the other extent of lands leaving out the subject property and it was allowed on 15.11.1989 in so far as the land owned by the said Mr.Vedathri

¶43

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

¶44

5/14

¶45

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶46

Gurukkal (a) Chellappa was concerned. Thereafter, the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa executed an agreement of sale dated 13.7.1977 in favour of the father of the petitioners measuring an extent of 3,600 sq.ft. in S.No.105/3 namely the subject property. However, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the father of the petitioners.

¶47

(iv) Hence, a suit in O.S.No.3252 of 1995 was filed by the petitioners and their parents on the file of the City Civil Court seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa, in which, an interim order was granted in I.A.No.7423 of 1995. Later, O.S.No.534 of 1997 also came to be filed by the petitioners and their mother on the file of the City Civil Court seeking for the relief specific performance. After contest, O.S.No.534 of 1997 was decreed on 21.3.2003 by the Trial Court and it was confirmed on appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Chennai by judgment dated 28.2.2005.

¶48

(v) During the pendency of S.A.No.882 of 2006 filed against the decree dated 28.2.2005, a compromise was entered into between the parties and the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa executed a sale deed dated 12.4.2007 registered as doc.No.3159 of 2007 on the

¶49

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

¶50

6/14

¶51

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶52

file of the Joint 1 Sub-Registrar, South Chennai conveying the subject property in favour of the petitioners. Pursuant to that, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶53

(vi) The petitioners wanted to take advantage of the said order dated 15.11.1989 passed in W.P.No.10902 of 1989 wherein the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was quashed in so far as the land owned by the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa was concerned. According to the petitioners, there was no reason to continue with the acquisition proceedings as against the petitioners and more particularly when the petitioners became the owners of the subject property by virtue of a decree passed by the competent Civil Court. It was under those circumstances, the above writ petitions came to be filed before this Court.

¶54

The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in WP.No. 26821 of 2008. In W.P.No.33888 of 2007, the second respondent filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 seeking to vacate the interim order granted on 26.10.2007 in M.P.No.1 of 2007 and filed a counter. In the counters, the second respondent took a stand that in so far as the subject property is concerned, the acquisition proceedings were never quashed and that the earlier orders relied upon by the petitioners pertained to

¶55

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

¶56

7/14

¶57

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶58

the lands in respect of different survey numbers, which will not apply to the subject property.

¶59

In the counters, the second respondent also took a stand that the petitioners purchased the subject property after the acquisition proceedings commenced and that the very sale made in favour of the petitioners after passing of the award is null and void. The second respondent took a further stand that an extent of 0.08 1/2 acre was already handed over to the second respondent in S.No.105/3A part on 12.1.1997 and that the balance extent of 0.10 1/2 acre was not handed over to the second respondent due to the existing structure. Ultimately, the second respondent sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.

¶60

This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶61

In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the orders that were relied upon by the petitioners in W.P.No. 1478 of 1982 dated 05.9.1983 and W.P.No.10902 of 1989 dated

¶62

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

¶63

8/14

¶64

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶65

15.11.1989 do not relate to the subject property and that they relate to some other properties. In so far as the subject property is concerned, the petitioners came into the scene only in the year 2007 after the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa executed the registered sale deed dated 12.4.2007 in favour of the petitioners on the conclusion of the civil proceedings. By then, the award was passed in 1986 itself.

¶66

On going through the award proceedings dated 23.9.1986, it is seen that the original owner of the subject property namely the said Mr.Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa appeared before the Enquiry Officer and claimed that he owned 0.11 1/2 acre in S.N.105/3A and he also spoke about the construction of the house in the land after the Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Upon hearing him, the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.8,042/-. Further, after adding solatium and increase in the market value, the total compensation amount was fixed at Rs.18,295/-.

¶67

A specific stand has been taken in the counters to the effect that an extent of 0.08 1/2 acre was handed over to the second respondent by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1997. However, the

¶68

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

¶69

9/14

¶70

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶71

balance extent was not able to be handed over due to the encroachment by constructing a building.

¶72

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Land & Building Department through Secretary & another Vs. Attro Devi & Others [reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302] , held that once the possession vests as per Sections 16 and 17 after the Notification under Section 4(1), the Declaration under Section 6, the notice issued under Section 9 and the award passed under Section 11 of the Act, the property will be free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the land owner cannot have any animus to take back the property and have control over it. If he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed into it after possession has been taken over by the State, he has to be considered as a trespasser.

¶73

The above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the instant case, after the award was passed pursuant to providing an opportunity to the original land owner of the subject property, Section 16 of the Act comes into play and the subject property absolutely vests with the Government. The petitioners came into the scene as the subsequent purchasers only in

¶74

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

¶75

10/14

¶76

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶77

the year 2007. To start with, the sale itself is null and void since it has taken place after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. If the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, they can be considered only as trespassers into the subject property as per the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶78

The petitioners also submitted that they have been in possession of the subject property right through and that therefore, the respondents can consider the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.247 Housing & Urban [LA-2(2)] Department dated 23.12.2024 for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings in so far as the subject property belonging to the petitioners is concerned since, in respect of the other lands, the Notification was quashed much earlier on the writ petition filed by the original owner of those properties. Thus, the last ditch attempt/effort made by the petitioners is to some how stick on to the subject property.

¶79

The said Government Order that was relied upon by the petitioners merely provided for dropping the acquisition proceedings in certain cases of land acquisition where the lands are not required for the project undertaken by the second respondent. For this purpose, a

¶80

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

¶81

11/14

¶82

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶83

Committee is appointed and the Committee has to decide on the same.

¶84

The petitioners do not have any legal right to seek for such a Mandamus. At best, they can make a representation to the respondents and request for considering the subject property being dropped from the acquisition proceedings. It is for the respondents to decide on the said request on its own merits and in accordance with law. This observation does not create any new right in favour of the petitioners and it is only a passing observation made based on one of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶85

In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are also dismissed.

¶86

07.3.2025

¶87

¶88

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶89

2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep.by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

¶90

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

¶91

12/14

¶92

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶93

3.The Special Deputy Collector

¶94

(LA), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

¶95

¶96

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

¶97

13/14

¶98

WP.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008

¶99

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J

¶100

¶101

W.P.Nos.33888 of 2007 & 26821 of 2008 &

¶102

& M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 &

¶103

1 of 2008

¶104

07.3.2025

¶105

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

¶106

14/14

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in G.O.Ms.No.1096 Housing and Urban Development dated 17.7.1978 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 06.8.1981, challenged in W.P.No.26821 of 2008 and relied upon for interference in W.P.No.33888 of 2007.¶34
Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department · 17.7.1978
Prior proceeding
W.P.No.1478 of 1982 filed by Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa and his brother to quash the Section 6 Declaration; allowed on 05.9.1983 leaving the Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.7.1978 intact.¶41
Prior proceeding
Order in W.P.No.1478 of 1982 confirmed on the State's appeal in W.A.No.479 of 1985 on 08.7.1985.¶41
Prior proceeding
W.P.No.10902 of 1989 filed by Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa challenging the Section 4(1) Notification dated 17.7.1978 for his other lands, leaving out the subject property; allowed on 15.11.1989.¶42
Prior proceeding
Agreement of sale dated 13.7.1977 executed by Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa in favour of the petitioners' father for 3,600 sq.ft. in S.No.105/3; sale deed not executed.¶46
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.3252 of 1995 (City Civil Court) suit for permanent injunction by the petitioners and their parents; interim order in I.A.No.7423 of 1995.¶47
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.534 of 1997 (City Civil Court) for specific performance decreed on 21.3.2003; confirmed in A.S.No.9 of 2004 (Additional District & Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Chennai) on 28.2.2005.¶47
Prior proceeding
S.A.No.882 of 2006 filed against the decree dated 28.2.2005; compromise entered into between the parties during its pendency.¶48
Prior proceeding
Registered sale deed dated 12.4.2007 (doc.No.3159 of 2007) executed by Vedathri Gurukkal (a) Chellappa conveying the subject property to the petitioners on conclusion of the civil proceedings.¶65
Prior proceeding
Award proceedings dated 23.9.1986: original owner appeared before the Enquiry Officer claiming 0.11 1/2 acre in S.N.105/3A; compensation fixed at Rs.8,042/- and total Rs.18,295/- with solatium and increase in market value.¶66
Prior proceeding
Second respondent's stand in counters: acquisition never quashed for the subject property; earlier orders related to different survey numbers; sale after award null and void; 0.08 1/2 acre handed over on 12.1.1997, balance 0.10 1/2 acre not handed over due to existing structure.¶59

V. Venkatesan 4, 21ST East v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkatesan 4, 21ST East v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariappan Vs the District Collector

Mariappan Vs the District Collector

S.Santhanamathy Vs The Project Director

Dayanidhi Maran Vs M.L.Ravi

P.Palanisamy Vs the Tashildhar

M.Sekar Babu Vs State Rep by