# TR. BOOPALAN & ORS v. TAMIL NADU

- **Citation:** [2008] 11 S.C.R. 1016
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-08-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2008
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Markandey Kat Ju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tr-boopalan-ors-v-tamil-nadu-23519
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition proceedings - Quashing of s. 4 Notification by High Court - Effect of -
(
c Appellants-land owners discovered later that in writ petition
area of land owned by them was wrongly mentioned - AppliJ-
cation for amendment, dismissed - Appellants seeking 'No
Objection Certificate' for construction on portion owned by them
I
~
- Authorities refusing to grant on ground that appellants en-
'
ID titled to relief only to the extent of land indicated in High Court's
order- Held: Not justified-Authorities wrongly confined 'NOC'
·~
to the area of land mentioned in the writ petition - Since the
entire lands stood released from the acquisition proceedings,
appellants were entitled to grant of 'NOC' for land owned by
E them - Judgment/Order - Correction of typographical error
~
owing to error in pleading.
~
I
Appellants were owners of plot of land in Survey
No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres, which was subject to acr
quisition proceedings. Appellants filed writ petition chalF
lenging the acquisition proceedings which was allowed.
-(
Thereafter appellants discovered that by way of inadvertence, the measurement of land was shown in writ petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and moved an
application for correcting the mistake. The said applica-
-~
G tion was dismissed by the High Court.
Appellants made an application to the Housing Board
Ifor grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the
¥
lands comprised in Survey No.188/4 for raising construer-
tions thereupon. It was rejected. The appellants filed a
. \
H
1016
>
TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU
1017
HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
fresh wrjt petition before .the High Court, for a direction to A
the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the aforesaid land consequent upon.
the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition. The High C~urt
directed the respondents to consider the representation
of the appellants.
s
The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was
dismissed. As the matter was not proceeded any further,
the order of High Court became fim· l between the p(lrties.
Thereafter, Housing Board offered to give a "No Obje~
tion Certificate" to the appellants for 0.81 cents only.
The appellants filed a fresh Writ Petition, for a direction upon the Respondent No. 1 to issue a "No Objection
Certificate" to the appellants in respect of the entire 0.81 · ·
acres comprising Survey No. 188/4, which was allowed.
The Housing Board filed appeal, which was allowed
c
D
by the Division -Bench of High Court holding, that the appellants were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land
indicated in the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench
also held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the apE
pellants' application for amending the said order which
had also attained finality as no appeal had been preferred
against the same. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact
that the land comprised in Survey No. 188/4 measures 0.81
acres. There is also no dispute that in deciding the Writ
Petition filed by the appellants challenging the Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in reG
spect of Survey No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said
notification was quashed. When the parties are not dis~
puting upon the basic fact that the Notification in respect
of the entire Survey No.188/4 was quashed, there could
be no justification in taking a technical objection that since . H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
1"
A the Writ Petition mentioned the relief sought by the writ
I
petitioners/appellants to be in respect of 0.81 cents, the apt-
pellants must be held to such prayer, even if apparently a
r
mistake had been committed. [Paras 16, 17] [1023 D,E,F,G]
'
B
2. When the Notification under s.4(1) of the L. A. Act,
with regard to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in re-
-tspect of the entire lands comprising 0.81 acres, there wa

## Text

[2008] 11S.C.R.1016
i"
A
T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS.
v.
f
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2008)
B
AUGUST 7, 2008
~
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition proceedings - Quashing of s. 4 Notification by High Court - Effect of -
(
c Appellants-land owners discovered later that in writ petition
area of land owned by them was wrongly mentioned - AppliJ-
cation for amendment, dismissed - Appellants seeking 'No
Objection Certificate' for construction on portion owned by them
I
~
- Authorities refusing to grant on ground that appellants en-
'
ID titled to relief only to the extent of land indicated in High Court's
order- Held: Not justified-Authorities wrongly confined 'NOC'
·~
to the area of land mentioned in the writ petition - Since the
entire lands stood released from the acquisition proceedings,
appellants were entitled to grant of 'NOC' for land owned by
E them - Judgment/Order - Correction of typographical error
~
owing to error in pleading.
~
I
Appellants were owners of plot of land in Survey
No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres, which was subject to acr
quisition proceedings. Appellants filed writ petition chalF
lenging the acquisition proceedings which was allowed.
-(
Thereafter appellants discovered that by way of inadvertence, the measurement of land was shown in writ petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and moved an
application for correcting the mistake. The said applica-
-~
G tion was dismissed by the High Court.
Appellants made an application to the Housing Board
Ifor grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the
¥
lands comprised in Survey No.188/4 for raising construer-
tions thereupon. It was rejected. The appellants filed a
. \
H
1016
>
TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU
1017
HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
fresh wrjt petition before .the High Court, for a direction to A
the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the aforesaid land consequent upon.
the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition. The High C~urt
directed the respondents to consider the representation
of the appellants.
s
The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was
dismissed. As the matter was not proceeded any further,
the order of High Court became fim· l between the p(lrties.
Thereafter, Housing Board offered to give a "No Obje~
tion Certificate" to the appellants for 0.81 cents only.
The appellants filed a fresh Writ Petition, for a direction upon the Respondent No. 1 to issue a "No Objection
Certificate" to the appellants in respect of the entire 0.81 · ·
acres comprising Survey No. 188/4, which was allowed.
The Housing Board filed appeal, which was allowed
c
D
by the Division -Bench of High Court holding, that the appellants were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land
indicated in the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench
also held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the apE
pellants' application for amending the said order which
had also attained finality as no appeal had been preferred
against the same. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact
that the land comprised in Survey No. 188/4 measures 0.81
acres. There is also no dispute that in deciding the Writ
Petition filed by the appellants challenging the Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in reG
spect of Survey No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said
notification was quashed. When the parties are not dis~
puting upon the basic fact that the Notification in respect
of the entire Survey No.188/4 was quashed, there could
be no justification in taking a technical objection that since . H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
1"
A the Writ Petition mentioned the relief sought by the writ
I
petitioners/appellants to be in respect of 0.81 cents, the apt-
pellants must be held to such prayer, even if apparently a
r
mistake had been committed. [Paras 16, 17] [1023 D,E,F,G]
'
B
2. When the Notification under s.4(1) of the L. A. Act,
with regard to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in re-
-tspect of the entire lands comprising 0.81 acres, there was
no reason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of
r
"No Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in
I
the Writ Petition. Since the entire lands stood released
tr
c from the acquisition proceedings, the appellants were
I
entitled to apply for "No Objection Certificate" in respect
of same but the Respondent No.1, for reasons best
.---
~
known to it, chose to confine itself only to the area of land
mentioned in the Writ Petition, which was clearly an unin-
~
D tended error. [Para 18] [1024 C,D,E]
11
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppea! No. 4926
~
\.
of 2008
From the final Judgment dated 31.1.2007 of the High Court
l
E of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 547 of 2005 and
W.A.M.P. No. 1019 of 2005
.__
C.A. Sundaram, Rajiv Dutta, S. Ramesh, R. Venkataraman,
Rohi))(f\,1usa, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Zafar lnayat, Abhishek
t=
Gupta, A.V. Arun and K. Uma Shankar for the Appellants.
F
,_
'
V. Krishna Murthy A.K. Ganguli, T. Harish Kumar for the
'
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. The appellants herein claim to be the owners of a plot of
r
land measuring 0.81 acres comprised in Survey No.188/4 in
'.K
Thiruvanmiyur village falling under Chengalpattu District, now
part of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. The said
t·
H land which was the subject matter of a Notification under Sec-
TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU
1019
HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
tion 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred
A
to as "the LA.Act", issued pursuant to G.O.MS 36/Housing, published by the Tamil Nadu Government in the Official Gazette on
19.2.1975. It is the case of the appellants that on 28.3.1983 an
Award was made in respect of the said lands which was registered in the name of the appellants.
B
3. In 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.16207 of
1991 challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of
Survey No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres. According to the appellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification
under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No.188/ C
4 of the aforesaid village was quashed. It appears that thereafter it was discovered by the appellants that through inadvertence the measurement of the land had been shown in the writ
petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and an application
was thereupon made before the High Court to correct the misD
take and to amend the relief in respect of 0.81 cents to 0.81
acres since there was no dispute regarding the same and the
correct figure had been mentioned both by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu. The said application for
amendment of the relief was dismissed on 23.2.1999 by the E
High Court on the ground. of laches.
4. Subsequently, the appellant applied to the Tamil Nadu
State Housing Board for issuance of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.188/4 to
enable the appellants to raise construction thereupon. It appears
F
from the records that an inquiry was conducted into the status
of the land and in a report received from the District Revenue
Officer, LA, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, it was revealed that the Government machinery was hesitant to take any
further action to question the correctness of the judgment of the G
High Court allowing the appellants' writ petition. On the basis of
the above, the appellants appear to have made an application
to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the lands comprised in Survey
No.188/4 for the purpose of raising constructions thereupon.
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
As the same was rejected, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition before the Madras High Court, being Writ Petition No.272
of 2000, on 10.1.2000, for a direction upon the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the
aforesaid land consequent upon the order passed in the earlier
B
Writ Petition. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellants and to pass orders in
accordance with law.
5. The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the.
order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed on 1 Oth
C April, 2003, on the ground of delay. As the matter was. not proceeded with furth~r. the order of the learned Single Judge became final between the parties. The appeal filed by the Respondent No.2 was also dismissed. Thereafter, on 13th February,
2004, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board offered to give a
D "No Objection Certificate" to the appellants for. 0.81 cents c:t.-4·:y~
6. The appellants were constrained to file a fresh Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 9488 of 2004, on 5th April, 2004, for a
direction upon the Respondent No. 1 to issue a "No Objection
Certificate" to the appellants in respect of the entire 0.8f acres
E
comprising SuNey No. 18J3/4 ofThiruvanmiyur. The writ petition
was allowed on 16th August, 2004, to do substantial justice to
the appellant without being hindered by techn,icalities.
7. The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board preferred Writ
F
Appeal No. 547 of 2005 against the judgment and order of the
--teatned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench
·(;n 31st January, 2007, upon holding, inter alia, that the appellants hereii;i were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land
indicated in the Single Judge's order and that equity could not
G be.applied to one of the parties alone. The Division Bench also
held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the appellants' application for amending the said order which had also attained
finality as no appeal had been preferred against the same.
8. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted by Mr.
H
Sundaram, learned senior counsel, that the Division Bench of
..
II-
t
T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU
1021
""'('
HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [Al TAMAS KABIR, J.]
the High Court failed to consider the appellants' case in its true A
perspective and allowed itself to be swayed by the fact that the
decision of the learned Single Judge was rendered on the basis of a judgment which had been overruled. The Division Bench
of the High Court relied upon the principle that if a judgment is
rendered on the basis of a decision, which had been overruled,
B
any decision taken on the basis of the overruled judgment will
be void. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the said principle would
have no application to the facts of the present case since the
Division Bench had itself concluded that the decision in the earlier
case had become final between the parties since the appeal c
preferred ·therefrom had been dismissed.
9. Mr. Sundaram urged that in the present case, the only
question which requires an answer is whether having regard to
the fact that the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of Survey
No. 188/4 had been quashed in the earlier proceedings, the D
'
"No Objection Certificate" asked for by the a_ppellants could be
confined only to 0.81 cents and not the entire land comprised in
Survey No.188/4. It was submitted that it was the understood
case of all the parties that the "No Objection Certificate" had
been asked for in respect of the entire land comprised in SurE
vey No. 188/4 and that the Writ Petition was filed for a direction
on the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for issuance of such
"No Objection Certificate" for the entire land, though through inadvertence the area in the Writ Petition was referred to as 0.81
cents in place of 0.81 acres. It was submitted that the same F
would be evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
Housing Board.
10. Mr. Sundaram referred to a copy of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 261h March, 1975 containing details of
the lands acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Housing G
Board, which includes Survey No. 188/4 showing the extent of
~-
the area comprised in the said Survey as 0.81 acres~
11. In addition to his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sundaram
also pointed out that in the earlier writ petition filed by the apH
r
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
A
pellants, the learned Single Judge had quashed the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in its a pp Iication to Survey No. 188/4 in its entirety. Once the entire land
comprised in Survey No. 188/4 stood released from the acquisition proceedings, the appellants were free to apply for a "No
B Objection Certificate" to the Respondent No.1 for the entire lands.
and the respondent No.1 was not entitled to confine the grant of
such "No Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in
the Writ Petition.
c
12. It was submitted that the Division Bench of the High
Court erred in reversing the Judgment of the Learned Single
Judge which had ta.ken a realistic view of the matter in order to
do justice between the parties.
~
13. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Mr.
D
Krishna Murthy, learned senior advocate, attempted to justify
the view taken by the Division Bench upon holding that the prayer
...
made in the Writ Petition by the appellants herein had been
granted and they could therefore have no grievance on such
score. In fact, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board had offered
E
and was always willing to grant the "No Objection Certificate" in
t
respect of 0.81 cents of land in respect of which the petitioner's
Writ Petition had been allowed.
14. Mr. Krishna Murthy reiterated the reasoning of the High
Court indicating that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for
~
F
the gander. He urged that while after the appeal preferred by
4
t
the Respondents against the order of the learned Single Judge
quashing the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of Survey No.
188/4 was dismissed on the ground of delay, no further steps
were taken in the matter, similarly, when the appellant's appliG cation for correction of the area of land mentioned in the Writ
Petition was rejecfed, no further steps were also taken by the
appellants against the said order. In other words, as in the case
of the Respondents so also in the case of the appellants, the
order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for
H
correction of the area of land in the Writ Petition had also be-
T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU
1023
'('
HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
come final and the appellant was, therefore, disentitled from
A
asking for the same relief in a round about manner. Mr. Krishna
Murthy conceded that the land comprised in SuNey No. 188/4
measured 0.81 acres, but according to him, withoufproper evidence, it could not be taken for granted that the appellants were
the only persons entitled to the entire land comprised in SuNey B
No. 188/4. It was urged that in such a scenario, the Division
Bench had quite rightly set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge for the aforesaid reasons.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division c
Bench of the High court in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the
Respondent No.1 herein.
16. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land
comprised in SuNey No. 188/4 measures 0.81 acres. There is D
also no dispute that in deciding the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of SuNey No. 188/4,
comprising 0.81 acres, the said notification was quashed.
17. It is in the said circumstances that the appellants' prayer E
for grant of "No Objection Certificate" was considered by the
learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants
herein. When the parties are agreed upon the basic fact that
the Notification in respect of the entire SuNey No.188/4 was
quashed, there could be no justification in taking a technical F
)
objection that since the Writ Petition mentioned the relief sought
by the writ petitioners/appellants to be in respect of 0.81 cents,
the appellants must be held to such prayer, even if apparently a
mistake had been committed. While a comparison had been
drawn between the failure of the respondents to take further G
steps in respect of the Order passed by the High Court quashing the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of Su Ney No. 188/4
and the failure of the appellants to take further steps on the dismissal of their application for correction of the relief prayed for
in the Writ Petition by amending the area mentioned in the Writ H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
-..,..
A
Petition for which relief has been sought, in our view, such a
comparison is not well-founded. While in the firstmatter, a decision of a Single Judge on merits was being questioned in appeal, in the second matter, there was no challenge to the merits
of the decision of the learned Single Judge but an application
B
had been made merely for correction of an error in the Writ
Petition itself with regard to the area for which relief was sought.
18. In our view, the two above-mentioned cases stand on
different footings and cannot be compared. Furthermore, there
is force in Mr. Sundaram's other limb of submission that when
c the Notification under Section 4( 1) of the L. A. Act, with regard
to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in respect of the entire
lands comprising 0.81 acres, there was no reason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of "No Objection Certificate"
. only to the area mentioned in the Writ Petition. Since the entire
D lands $tood released fro~ the acquisition proceedings, we are
of the view that the appellants were entitled to apply for "No
Objection Certificate" in respect of same but the Respondent
No.1, for reasons best known to it, chose to confine itself only to
the area of land mentioned in the Writ Petition, which according
E to us was clearly an unintended error.
19. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the
decision of the Division Bench, which is set ·aside. We, thereJore, restore the decision of the learned Single Judge by which
the Writ Petition was allowed.
"'
F
20. The present appeal is, accordingly allowed, but there
~
will be no order as to costs.
D.G.
Appeal allowed.