TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 284/3 (extent of 64 cents). As the provisions of the Urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Act were not invoked, the persons interested were at liberty to file objections under Section 5- A of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the said land was issued on 6.6.1981. Very few among the persons interested, challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing 8 writ petitions, including Writ Petition Nos. 8897 and 8899 of 1983 etc. which were filed by some of the original tenure-holders of the suit land on several grounds. However, the said petitioners did not challenge the acquisition proceedings so far as the suit land is concerned, rather they chose to restrict their cases to the other parts of their lands. The batch of said writ petitions was allowed by way of a common judgment and order, dated 16.12.1983, quashing the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted fairly, and that the objections raised by the said writ petitioners under Section 5-A, were also not dealt with properly. However, the learned Single Judge upheld the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and hence, granted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein, vide sale- deeds dated 4.3.2004, 10.11.2004, 7.7.2005 and 11.8.2005. As a result thereof, they claim to have acquired possession of the said suit land. The appellants planned to construct flats upon the said land, for the purpose of which, they had also obtained permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 16.3.2007. Applications were filed by the original tenure-holders for re-conveyance of the suit land which stood as rejected vide order dated 7.7.2008. H. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 6108 of 2009 for the quashing of the Notification dated 15.5.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Act, pertaining to the land that comprised 9 Survey Numbers, including the suit land contending that the declaration under Section 6 had been quashed in toto and no fresh declaration was subsequently issued. The proceedings therefore, automatically lapsed as there could be no Award without a fresh declaration, and therefore, all subsequent proceedings would be void ab-initio. Another Writ Petition No. 20896 of 2009, was also filed seeking totally inconsistent/contrary reliefs i.e. praying for the quashing of the letter dated 7.7.2005, as also for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeals, contending that the predecessor-in-interest, of the appellants did not raise any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, with respect to such acquisition proceedings at any stage, rather they accepted the compensation granted under protest. To receive an award under protest is a legal requirement for the purpose of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The quashing of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act would not automatically apply to the suit land, as it was not the subject matter of challenge with respect to the acquisition proceedings before court. The appellants did not make any inquiry whatsoever, with respect to the title of the suit land, though inquiry was sought to be made in relation to the said land, by different persons in altogether different contexts. The report of the high powered committee appointed by the Board itself, is self-contradictory, as they clearly provided that possession had been taken and, in view of the fact that once possession is taken, the said land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances under Section 16 of the Act, the same cannot be divested. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., this Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person- interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. (See also: Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 698). 8. In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir & Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177, this Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. (See also: Tika Ram v. State of U.P., (2009) 10 SCC 689). 9. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the cooperative society which had planned a housing scheme upon it, in view of the conclusion that it could not be called a "public purpose", within the meaning of the Act. The Court further directed the respondents therein to restore the possession of the land to the tenure-holders/persons-interested, and such persons were thereafter, directed to refund the amount received by them as compensation. (See also: H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. M. Venkataswamappa & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 128) 13. The said judgment has subsequently been approved and followed by this Court, in Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3822, wherein this Court held as follows: "Quashing the notification in the cases of individual writ petitions cannot be treated as quashing the whole of it. That was what was held in Abhey Ram case (supra). The main points raised before us are fully covered by the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case." 14. In Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2430, this Court considered a similar issue and reiterated the view taken by this Court in Abhey Ram (supra), wherein it was held that, in case a person interested has not filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 492). 17. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v. Shri Kishan & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 84 and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 100). 18. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies as per the context of the Statute, unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore) . Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354). 22. In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person- interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect. 23. The general rule of law is undoubted, that no one can transfer a better title than he himself possesses; Nemo dat quod non habet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1978, in relation to Survey Nos. 282/1, 282/2, 283/1, 283/2, 284/1, 284/2, 284/3, 284/4 situated in Tambaram Village, Chennai, had lapsed and become inoperative and consequently, to issue a mandamus, barring the respondents, their men, their agents, subordinates, servants or anyone acting under them, from interfering in any manner, with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties belonging to the appellants, as stipulated in the aforementioned surveys. 27. The appellants also filed another writ petition for quashing the orders passed in relation to the applications of their predecessors-in- interest with respect to re-conveyance of the said land. The reliefs claimed therein inter-alia, are as under: "Issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 4th respondent bearing Letter No. 2899/LAI(1)/2007-6 dated 7.7.2008 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reconvey the property situate at Survey No. 283/1 measuring about 0.27 cents, Survey No. 284/1 measuring about 0.70....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings, so far as the suit land is concerned, instead they chose to withdraw the compensation awarded in 1983 and 1986; after the expiry of about three decades and hence, they cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. The appellants cannot claim title/relief better than what the original vendors were entitled to. 31. In fact, the appellants have claimed reliefs in the writ petitions with respect to not just the suit land but also in relation to the land which was the subject matter of an earlier litigation by their predecessors-in-interest. We fail to understand for what purpose the relief of quashing the acquisition proceedings has been sought when, in respect of the said land, the proceedings already stood quashed. 32. The High Court dealt with the proceeding, issued in RC No. 8222/95/F5, which is purported to have been issued by one K.Muthu, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), and observed that the said proceeding itself stood cancelled and somehow a xerox copy of the said proceeding was obtained by the appellants and they utilised the same to secure permission for sanctioning their plan of construction of flats on the said land.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly deprecate their conduct by observing that, the truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system. The quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the course of court proceedings. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice, or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 37. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. "Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest". An action at law is not a game of chess, therefore, a litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions. It is one of those fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings. (Vide: Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677; and Amar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69). 38. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead), (2012) 5 SCC 370), this Court taking note of its earlier judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Ni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of validity of the acquisition in respect of the suit land. iii) Award no.14/1983 was made on 28.6.1983, in respect of Survey Nos.283/1, 284/1 and 284/3. The amount of compensation, was withdrawn by the original tenure holders/persons-interested, though of course, under protest, and the same was limited to the extent of quantum of compensation, so that they could approach the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. iv) The judgment of the learned Single Judge is subsequent to the aforesaid award. As the compensation related to the land had been withdrawn, and the land stood vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, quashing the declaration under Section 6 in cases filed by others, would not enure any benefit to the original tenure holders/appellants, as has been explained by this Court in the case of Abhey Ram (supra), and furthermore, even if the declaration stood quashed in toto, it could not save the suit land, as its possession had already been taken over. v) In the instant case, the High Court did not declare the acquisition proceedings to be void, or the purpose for which the land had been acquired not to be a "public purpose" with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttee contained in Annexure-P.11 make it clear that the said Committee was constituted, only upon the request of the appellants to consider their grievances. The recommendations suggest that although possession of the suit land was taken, as the land was inaccessible, it remained unutilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. Therefore, reconveyance of the same was suggested. xvi) An application for re-conveyance was filed by the original tenure holders and their legal heirs, and not by the appellants with respect to the said part of the suit land, as is evident from the orders dated 18.12.2007 and 7.7.2008. The said letters, in fact, were addressed to Tmt. K. Palaniammal, Tmt. Girija, Tmt. Nagammal, Thiru A.E. Kothandaraman Mudaliar, and Thiru M. Mahalingam in response to an application made by them. xvii) It is evident from the record that there was no application for reconveyance of the land in Survey No.284/2, though the appellants have sought relief in relation to this land also. xviii) The appellants filed applications for re-conveyance through the original tenure holders/legal heirs. This clearly reveals that the appellants themselves had been of the view that the s....