# V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR v. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 10 S.C.R. 603
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6342-6343 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Singh Khehar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-chandrasekaran-anr-v-the-administrative-officer-ors-27964
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

A
B
Land Acquisition - Acquisition proceeding - Under Land
Acquisition Act - Proceeding never challenged in respect of C
land in question - Compensation accepted - Possession of
land given to authority concerned - Declaration uls. 6, in
respect of the land other than the land in question, quashed
- The original tenure-holder selfing the land in question to the
appellants (vendees) - Applications, by original tenureD
holders for re-conveyance of the land in question, rejected -
Writ petitions by the vendees seeking quashing of Notification
u/s. 4 and in another petition seeking direction to re-convey
the land in their favour - Single Judge of High Court allowing
the petitions - Division Bench of High Court setting aside E
order of Single Judge - Vendees seeking release of the land
in question in their favour subject to refund of compensation
amount - On appeal, held: The person interested, if does not
raise any objection uls. 5A, accepts the compensation and
does not challenge acquisition proceedings, cannot be F
permitted to challenge the proceeding after about 3 decades
- The quashing of the declaration in some other case, would
not enure any benefit to such person - Once the possession
of the land was taken by the State and the land got vested in
it free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and G
restored to the person interested -
The person interested
becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State
-
The person who purchases the land subsequent to the
issuance of notification u/s. 4, is not competent to challenge
603
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A the validity of the acquisition proceedings because the sale
deed does not confer upon him any title - The vendees have
also not approached the court with clean hands as they have
played fraud upon the authorities and used forged document
- Hence not ~titled to any equitable relief either - Appeals
B dismissed with cost of Rs. 25 lacs - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - ss. 4 and 6.
Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of court -
Held: A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading/
C
inaccurate statement, only to achieve ulterior purpose,
amounts to an abuse of process of the court.
D
Maxims:
'Nemo dat quod non habet' - Applicability of
'Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius
Detrimento Et lnjuria Fieri Locupletiorem' - Meaning and
applicability of.
A notificatioi;t uls. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
E was issued in the year 1978. The notification was in
respect of land including the suit land. A declaration u/s.
6 of the Act was also issued.
Writ Petitions were filed challenging the acquisition
F proceedings in respect of the land other than the suit
land. In that round of litigation, which went up to Supreme
Court, the declaration u/s. 6 was quashed and notification
u/s. 4 was quashed only qua those lands, in respect of
which the acquisition proceedings were challenged. In
G the meantime, award was passed in respect of the land
including the suit land.
H
Second batch of writ petitions were filed challenging
the acquisition proceedings and the award. The petitions
were allowed. Thereafter, second award was made in
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 605
OFFICER & ORS.
respect of the remaining part of the acquired land which
A
also included the suit land.
In respect of the suit land, the persons interested/
tenure-holders never filed any objections u/s. 5A of the
Act, nor did they challenge the acquisition proceedings
8
at any stage. They accepted the compensation amount
under protest for inadequacy of compensation amount.
Possession of the sui.t land was taken over by the
Authority.
Thereafter, the tenure-holders transferred the suit C
land in favour of the appellants in the year 2004 and 2005.
Appellants claimed to have acquired possession of the
suit land. They also obtained permission from the
Development Authority to construct flat thereon.
The original tenure-holders filed applications for reconveya n ce of the s

## Text

_Characters 0–39,792 of 69,639. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39792 for what follows._

[2012] 10 S.C.R. 603
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR.
v.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6342-6343 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH
KHEHAR, JJ.]
A
B
Land Acquisition - Acquisition proceeding - Under Land
Acquisition Act - Proceeding never challenged in respect of C
land in question - Compensation accepted - Possession of
land given to authority concerned - Declaration uls. 6, in
respect of the land other than the land in question, quashed
- The original tenure-holder selfing the land in question to the
appellants (vendees) - Applications, by original tenureD
holders for re-conveyance of the land in question, rejected -
Writ petitions by the vendees seeking quashing of Notification
u/s. 4 and in another petition seeking direction to re-convey
the land in their favour - Single Judge of High Court allowing
the petitions - Division Bench of High Court setting aside E
order of Single Judge - Vendees seeking release of the land
in question in their favour subject to refund of compensation
amount - On appeal, held: The person interested, if does not
raise any objection uls. 5A, accepts the compensation and
does not challenge acquisition proceedings, cannot be F
permitted to challenge the proceeding after about 3 decades
- The quashing of the declaration in some other case, would
not enure any benefit to such person - Once the possession
of the land was taken by the State and the land got vested in
it free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and G
restored to the person interested -
The person interested
becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State
-
The person who purchases the land subsequent to the
issuance of notification u/s. 4, is not competent to challenge
603
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A the validity of the acquisition proceedings because the sale
deed does not confer upon him any title - The vendees have
also not approached the court with clean hands as they have
played fraud upon the authorities and used forged document
- Hence not ~titled to any equitable relief either - Appeals
B dismissed with cost of Rs. 25 lacs - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - ss. 4 and 6.
Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of court -
Held: A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading/
C
inaccurate statement, only to achieve ulterior purpose,
amounts to an abuse of process of the court.
D
Maxims:
'Nemo dat quod non habet' - Applicability of
'Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius
Detrimento Et lnjuria Fieri Locupletiorem' - Meaning and
applicability of.
A notificatioi;t uls. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
E was issued in the year 1978. The notification was in
respect of land including the suit land. A declaration u/s.
6 of the Act was also issued.
Writ Petitions were filed challenging the acquisition
F proceedings in respect of the land other than the suit
land. In that round of litigation, which went up to Supreme
Court, the declaration u/s. 6 was quashed and notification
u/s. 4 was quashed only qua those lands, in respect of
which the acquisition proceedings were challenged. In
G the meantime, award was passed in respect of the land
including the suit land.
H
Second batch of writ petitions were filed challenging
the acquisition proceedings and the award. The petitions
were allowed. Thereafter, second award was made in
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 605
OFFICER & ORS.
respect of the remaining part of the acquired land which
A
also included the suit land.
In respect of the suit land, the persons interested/
tenure-holders never filed any objections u/s. 5A of the
Act, nor did they challenge the acquisition proceedings
8
at any stage. They accepted the compensation amount
under protest for inadequacy of compensation amount.
Possession of the sui.t land was taken over by the
Authority.
Thereafter, the tenure-holders transferred the suit C
land in favour of the appellants in the year 2004 and 2005.
Appellants claimed to have acquired possession of the
suit land. They also obtained permission from the
Development Authority to construct flat thereon.
The original tenure-holders filed applications for reconveya n ce of the suit land, which was rejected.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed two writ petitions.
D
In one petition they sought for the quashing of the
Notification u/s. 4 issued in the year 1978 pertaining to
E
the land that comprised 9 survey numbers including the
suit land. In another petition they sought quashing of the
letter dated 7.7.2008 and for the issuance of directions to
re-convey the suit land in their favour.
Single Judge of High Court allowed both the
F
petitions, observing that since declaration u/s. 6 was
quashed in toto and no fresh declaration was issued
thereafter, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed
and hence the suit land was free from all acquisition
proceedings. Division Bench of the High Court reversed
G
the judgment of Single Judge. Hence the present
appeals.
In appeal, the appellants inter-alia contended that as
the High Powered Committee, constituted by the
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
respondent-Board, submitted the report which noted that
the suit land was not required by the Board and the same
stands vested in the State, the land could be released in
favour of the appellants, subject to the refunding of the
compensation amount which the tenure-holders had
B received in 1983, to the authority, though the same had
not been accepted. The appellants were still willing to
refund the compensation amount.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
C
HELD: 1. A person who purchases land subsequent
to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect
to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the
acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for
the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does
D not confer upon him any title, and at the most he can
claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title.
[Para 9] [624-C-D]
Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC
E 2112: 1976 (1) SCR 341; Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 540: 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 264;
Union of india v. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhargava and Ors. JT
(1995) 6 SC 274: 1995 (1) SCR 354; U.P. Jal Nigam v.
Mis. Katra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170: 1996 (1)
F
SCR 683 ; Ajay Kishan Singha/ v. Union of India AIR 1996
SC 2677: 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319; Mahavir and Anr. v.
Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 335: 1995
(2) Suppl. SCR 421 ; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. (1995)
2 SCC 528: 1995 (1) SCR 412; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177: 2008 (10)
G
SCR 1012 - relied on.
H
Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1996)
11 SCC 698: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 6; Tika Ram v. State of
U.P. (2009) 10 SCC 689: 2009 (14) SCR 905 - referred to.
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 607
OFFICER & ORS.
2.1. The relief obtained by some persons, by A
approaching the court immediately after the cause of
action has arisen, cannot be the basis for other persons
who have belatedly filed their petition, to take the benefit
of earlier relief provided, for the reason that, such
persons cannot be permitted to take impetus of an order B
passed by the court, at tl)e behest of another more
diligent person. [Para 1 O] [624-F]
2.2. Therefore, in the event that the person interested
has not filed objections in response to a notice issued
under Section 5-A, and has not challenged the acquisition C
proceedings, the quashing of the declaration issued
under Section 6 in some other case, would not enure any
benefit to such person. More so, where the possession
of land has already been taken, and such land stands
vested. in the State, free from all encumbrances as D
provided under Sections 16 and 17(2) of the Act, prior to
the date of decision of the court quashing the declaration
in toto, no benefit can be taken by him. Where a party has
not filed objections to the notice issued under Section 5A, the declaration qua such persons is generally neither E
quashed, nor does it stand vitiated qua him, by any error
of law warranting interference. There is also another view
with respect to this matter, which is that, in case the said
land has been acquired for a Scheme, which does not fall
within the ambit of "public purpose" then, in such a case,
F
it would not be a case of acquisition under the Act,
instead, it would amount to colourable exercise of power.
[Para 15] [626-E-H; 627-A]
2.3. Quashing the declaration under Section 6 in G
cases filed by others, would not enure any benefit to the
original tenure holders/appellants. Furthermore, even if
the declaration stood quashed in toto, it could not save
the suit land, as its possession had already been taken
over. [Para 42] [637-C-D]
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 10 S.C.R.
A
Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2276: 1993 (3) SCR 751 ; State of
Kamataka and Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC
267: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 426; Jagdih Lal and Ors. v.
State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2366; Abhey Ram
B
(dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997
SC 2564: 1997 (3) SCR 931 ; H.M. T. House Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader and Ors. AIR 1995 SC
2244: 1995 (2) SCR 200 ; Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh
Uban and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3822: 1999 (1) Suppl.
c SCR 650; Om Prakash v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2010
SC 2430 - relied on.
H.M. T. House Building Cooperative Society v. M.
Venkataswamappa and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 128 - referred to.
D
3.1. Once the land is vested in the State, free from all
E
encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings
under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not
made within the statutorily stipulated period. [Para 16]
[627-C]
Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Biharand. Ors. (1995) 6
SCC 31: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 197 ; U.P. Jal Nigam v.
Mis. Katra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170: 1996 (1)
SCR
683;
Allahabad Development Authority
v.
Nasiruzzaman and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 424: 1996 (5) Suppl.
F
SCR 435; M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 322: 2000 (3) SCR 167; Government of
Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 492:
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208 - relied on.
G
3.2. The 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
H of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 609
OFFICER & ORS.
once the possession of the land has been taken and the A
land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. 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
B
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 C
any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever,
unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect.
[Paras 17 and 22] [627-E-F; 629-E-G]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma AIR 1966 SC
1593: 1966 SCR 557; Lt. Governor of Himacha/ Pradesh D
and Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma AIR 1970 SC 1576: 1971
(1) SCR 413; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Ors.
AIR 1993 SC 2517: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336; Rajasthan
Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and Ors. (1993) 2
SCC 84: 1993 (1) SCR 269; Dedicated Freight Corridor E
Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh and Ors. (2011) 11 SCC
100: 2011 (3) SCR 1160; Fruit and Vegetable Merchants
Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust AIR 1957 SC 344:
1957 SCR 1; Gu/am Mustafa and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 448; 1977 (1) SCR
F
875 ; State of Kera/a and Anr. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr.
(1997) 5 SCC 432: 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 87; Government
of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar and Ors. AIR 2005 SC
492: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208- relied on.
C. Padma and Ors. v. Deputy Secretary to the G
Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627: 1996
(9) Suppl. SCR 158 ; Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
AIR 1999 SC 436 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 404:; Niladri
Narayan Chandradhurja v. State of West Bengal AIR 2002
SC 2532; Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 335: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 534 ;
Leelawanti and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2012) 1
SCC 66; Pratap v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 1296:
1996 (2) SCR 1088 ; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v.
State of Maharashtra (1996) 6 SCC 405 : 1996 (5) Suppl.
B
SCR 445; State of Kera/a and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai
and Anr. AIR 1997 SC 2703: 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 87;
Printers Mysore Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC
460: 2004 (3) SCR 799; Bangalore Development Authority
V. R. Hanumaiah (2005) 12 sec 508: 2005 (3) Suppl.
c
SCR 901; Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State
of U.P. and Anr. (2011) 9 sec 354: 2012 (12) SCR 191 -
referred to.
4.1. The general rule of law is that no one can transfer
a better title than he himself possesses; Nemo dat quod
D non habet. However, this Rule has certain exceptions and
one of them is, that the transfer must be in good faith for
value, and there must be no misrepresentation or fraud,
which would render the transactions as void and also
that the property is purchased after taking reasonable
E care to ascertain that the transferee has the requisite
power to transfer the said land, and finally that the parties
have acted in good faith, as is required under Section 41
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Para 23) [629-H;
630-A-B]
F
4.2. In the instant case, the tenure holders/personinterested neither filed objections under Section 5-A of the
Act, nor have they challenged the land acquisition
proceedings, so far as the suit land is concerned, instead
G 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
H original vendors were entitled to. [Para 30) [633-A-B]
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 611
OFFICER & ORS.
Asa Ram and Anr. v. Mst. Ram Kali and Anr. AIR 1958
A
SC 183: 1958 SCR 988; State Bank of India v. Rajendra
Kumar Singh and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 401: 1969 SCR 216;
Controller of Estate Duty, Lucknow v. Aloke Mitra AIR 1981
SC 102: 1981 (1) SCR 943; Hanumant Kumar Talesara v.
Mohal Lal AIR 1988 SC 299: 1988 (2) SCR 99; State of B
Punjab v. Surjit Kaur(Dead) through LRs. JT (2001) 10 SC
42 - relied on.
Wardington Lyngdoh and Ors. v. Collector, Mawkyrwat
(1995) 4 SCC 428: 1995 (3) SCR 354; Ajit Singh and Anr.
C
v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 67 - referred to.
5. The reliefs sought by the appellants in their two
writ petitions are mutually inconsistent and contradictory.
In the event that the appellants wanted a declaration. to
the effect that the acquisition proceedings in pursuance
D
of issuance of the Section 4 notification, dated 15.5.1978
had lapsed or were void, the questicn of seeking reconveyance of the said land could not arise. More so, the
appellants cannot claim relief in respect of 9 survey
numbers as in the present appeals, relief is restricted only
E
to 4 of the survey numbers. It is apparent that the
appellants' claim cannot co-exist and can be said to be
blowing hot and blowing cold, simultaneously. As the
original vendors i.e. vendors of the first sale were not
vested with any title over the said land, the transfer by
F
them, was itself void and all subsequent transfers would
also, as a result, remain ineffective and unenforceable in
law. Therefore, sale deeds executed in the years 2004-05
would not confer any title on the appellants. [Paras 28
and 42] [632-B-D; 637-G-H; 638-A]
G
Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. Hornor Resources
(International) Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 420 : 2011
(12) SCR 473 - relied on.
6.1. The High Court observed that the appellant have
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A played fraud upon the authorities in order to obtain the
c;anction of their plan of construction of flats on the land
in question. The High Court also recorded findings to the
effect that the appellants have "managed", not only to
obtain certain orders from the department, but have also
B misused the process of the court to achieve a sinister
design. The court further took note that one of the
appellants had filed an additional affidavit before the High
Court in a writ petition by way of which, had attempted
to mislead the court through furnishing of false
c information. It has even been admitted at the Bar, that the
letter dated 7.7.2005 which was placed on the record by
the appellants before the High Court, was in fact, a forged
document. The appellants have not approached the court
with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any
0 relief. Whenever a person approaches a Court of Equity,
in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is
expected that he will approach the said court not only
with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart
and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do
equity. The legal maxim "Jure Naturae Aequum Est
E Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et lnjuria Fieri .
Locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one
should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to
another. [Paras 32, 33 and 34) [633-E-H; 634-A-C]
F
The Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and
G
Ors. AIR 1993 SC 852: 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 426;
Nooruddin v. (Dr.) K.L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242; Ramnik/a/
N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1997
SC 1236: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 787 - relied on.
6.2. The appellants filed an affidavit before the High
Court only to mtslead the court by furnishing false
information. The judicial process cannot become an
instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the
H process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 613
OFFICER & ORS.
the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of A
justice. The interests of justice and public interest
coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the
same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading
and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an
ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the
8
court. [Paras 35 and 42] [634-E-F; 638-F]
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC
114: 2009 (16)
SCR 111 - relied on.
6.3. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire C
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 o
total clarity and candour in their pleadings. [Para 37] [635B-C]
Ritesh Tewari and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(2010) 10SCC 677: 2010 (11) SCR 589; Amar Singh v.
Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69: 2011 (6) SCR 403 - relied
E
on.
6.4. Wrongdoers must be denied profit from their
frivolous litigation, and that they should be prevented
from introducing and relying upon, false pleadings and
F
forged or fabricated documents in the records furnished
by them to the court. Thus, the appellants have
disentitled themselves for any equitable relief. [Para 38,
39] [635-G-H]
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. v. Erasmo
Jack deSequeria (dead) (2012) 5 SCC 370; Ramrameshwari
Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249: 2011 (8) SCR 992
- relied on.
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 10 S.C.R.
A
7 .1. Section 16-A has been added to the Act by the
State Amendment Act, 1996, and the same imposes a
complete restriction on the sale of acquired land by the
tenure holder. In case the land is transferred in
contravention of these provisions, the Government may,
8 by way of an order, declare the transfer to be null and
void, and on such declaration, the land shall, as penalty,
be forfeited to, and vest in, the Revenue Department of
the Government, free from all encumbrances. Therefore,
the sale deeds in favour of the appellants are void and
C unenforceable. In such a fact-situation, the appellants
could not have come in possession of the suit land which
had been vested in the State ages ago, in the years 1983
and 1986. Such a course is not possible without the
collusion of the officers of the State/Board. [Paras 40 and
D 41] [635-H; 636-A-D]
7.2. The Chief Secretary of the State is requested to
examine the issues involved in the case and find out as
who were the officials of the State or Board responsible
for this loot of the public properties and proceed against
E them in accordance with law. He is further directed to
ensure eviction of the appellants from the public land
forthwith. [Para 44] [640-G-H]
8. The appeals are dismissed with the costs of
F Rupees Twenty Five lacs, which the appellants are
directed to deposit with the Supreme Court Legal
Services Authority within a period of six weeks. [Para 43]
[640-F]
Case Law Reference:
G
1976 (1) SCR 341
Relied on
Para 6
1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 264 Relied on
Para 6
1995 (1) SCR 354
Relied on
Para 6
H
1996 (1) SCR 683
Relied on
Para 7
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 615
OFFICER & ORS.
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 6
Referred to
Para 7
A
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319 Relied on
Para 8
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 421
Relied on
Para 8
1995 (1) SCR 412
Relied on
Para 8
B
2008 (10) SCR 1012
Relied on
Para 8
2009 (14) SCR 905
Referred to
Para 8
1993 (3) SCR 751
Relied on
Para 10
c
1996 ( 5) Suppl. SCR 426 Relied on
Para 10
AIR 1997 SC 2366
Relied on
Para 10
1997 (3) SCR 931
Relied on
Para 11
1995 (2) SCR 200
Relied on
Para 12
D
(1995) 3 sec 128
Referred to
Para 12
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 650
Relied on
Para 13
AIR 2010 SC 2430
Relied on
Para 14
E
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 197 Relied on
Para 16
1996 (1) SCR 683
Relied on
Para 16
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 435 Relied on
Para 16
F
2000 (3) SCR 167
Relied on
Para 16
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208
Relied on
Para 16
1966 SCR 557
Relied on
Para 17
1971 (1) SCR 413
Relied on
Para 17
G
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 Relied on
Para 17
1993 (1) SCR 269
Relied on
Para 17
2011 (3) SCR 1160
Relied on
Para 17
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2012] 10 S.C.R.
'
A
1957 SCR 1
Relied on
B
c
D
1977 (1) SCR 875 ..
Relied on
1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 87 · Relied on
1996 (9) Suppl: SC::_R_ 158 Relied on
1998 _(3) Suppl. SCR · 404
Relied on ·· ·
AIR 2002 SC 2532
Relied on
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 534
Relied on
(2012) 1 sec 66
Relied on
· 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208
Relied on
1996 (2) SCR 1088
Referred to ·
1996 (5) Suppl. 'SCR 445 Referred to
1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 87 . Referred to
2004 (3) SCR 799 ·
Referred to
. - •- .:-
Para 18
Para 19
Para 20
Para 20
Para 20
Para 20
Para 20
Para 20
Para 21
Para 21
Para 21
-
·Para 21
Para 21
E
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 901 __ Referred to
Para 21
. - .
2012 (12) SCR 191
Referred to ·
Para 21
F
G
1958 SCR 988
1969 SCR 216
-
1981 (1) SCR 943
1988 (2) SCR 99
JT (2001) 10 SC 42
1995 (3) SCR 354
(1994) 4 sec 67
Relied on
Relied on
Relied on
Relied on
Relied on
Relied on
Referred to
2011 (12) SCR 473
Relied on
H
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 426-Relied on
Para 23
Para 23
Para 23
· Para 23
·Para 23
Para 23
.
Para 25
Para 29
Para 34
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 617
OFFICER & ORS.
(1995) 1 sec 242
Relied on
Para 34
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 787 Relied on
Para 34
2009 (16) SCR 111
Relied on
Para 36
2010 (11) SCR 589
Relied on
Para 37
2011 (6) SCR 403
Relied on
Para 37
c2012) 5 sec 370
Relied on
Para 38
2011 (8) SCR 992
Relied on
Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6342-6343 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.1.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 805 & 806 of 2011.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajiv Dutta, K.K. Mani, Krishna
Ravindran, Jayveer, T. Sheela, Abhishek Krishna for the
Appellants.
A
B
c
D
S. Gomathi Nayagam, AAG, B. Balaji, G. Hari hara Arun
E
Soma Sankar, Rakesh Sharma, P. Krishnamoorthy for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been
F
preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
24.1.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
in Writ Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2011, by which, the Division
Bench reversed the judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 1.11.2010 passed in relation to land acquisition
G
proceedings.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
are as under:
A. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued
on 15.5.1978 with respect to land measuring 58.59 acres,
in the revenue estate of Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk,
Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu, including the suit land
measuring 2.26 acres in Survey Nos. 283/1 (extent of 27
·cents), 284/1 (extent of 70 cents), 284/2 (extent of 65
cents) and 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 liberty to the Government of Tamil Nadu to
continue with the said acquisition proceedings, in
accordance with law.
B. Being aggrieved by this, the writ petitioners including
the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, preferred
Writ Appeal Nos. 214 to 225 and 435of1984, before the
Division Bench of the High Court, against the judgment and
order dated 16.12.1983, praying for quashing of the
Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, as well. The
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 619
OFFICER & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Government did not challenge the judgment and order A
dated 16.12.1983. The said writ appeals were allowed
vide judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, and the said
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, only in respect
of the land, which constituted the subject matter of the
aforementioned appeals, was quashed. Against the B
judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, the Government of
Tamil Nadu preferred a Special Leave Petition before this
Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.1992.
Thus, those orders attained finality.
C. In the meantime, an Award was passed with respect C
to the said land, including the suit land, on 28.6.1983, to
the extent of 4.26 acres i.e. Survey Nos. 283/1, 284/1 and
284/3.
D. A second batch of writ petitions was filed before the D
High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, as well
as the Award. All the said writ petitions were allowed,
following the earlier judgments dated 16.12.1983 and
23.8.1985 vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1986.
E
E. A second award was made on 14.8.1986, in relation
to the remaining part of said land, including a part of the
suit land, i.e. Survey No. 284/2.
F. So far as the suit land is concerned, the personsinterested/tenure-holders never filed any objection under F
Section 5-A of the Act, and nor have they challenged the
acquisition proceedings, at any stage. Instead, they
accepted the compensation amount under protest.
Possession of the suit land was taken over by the authority
subsequently. There is nothing on record to show whether G
the claimants had filed any application for making a
reference under Section 18 of the Act.
G. The tenure-holders/persons-interested in the suit land,
after receiving compensation, and handing over the
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
possession to the respondents authorities with respect to
the suit land, transferred the said land to some persons,
and ultimately, after undergoing multiple sales, the suit land
was purchased by the appellants herein, 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 20"09 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 the issuance of
directions to re-convey the suit land in favour of the
appellants.
I. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated
1.11.2010 allowed both Writ Petitions, observing that as
the Section 6 declaration had been quashed in toto and
no fresh dec.laration was issued thereafter, the land
acquisition proceedings had lapsed and the suit land was
hence, free from any and all acquisition proceedings.
J. Being aggrieved, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 621
OFFICER & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') - the respondents,
A
then filed writ appeals which have been allowed vide
impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2012, reversing
the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Hence, these appeals.
B
3. Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi and Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted
that, since the Section 6 declaration dated 6.6.1981 has been
quashed in toto and no fresh declaration was made thereafter,
subsequent proceedings are void ab-initio. The appellants, C
before purchasing the suit land made various inquiries and were
informed in writing by various authorities, that the said land was
not the subject matter of any acquisition proceedings at the
relevant time. More so, a high powered committee, constituted
by the Board itself, submitted a report that the suit land was not D
required by the Board, and that even though the possession of
the land had been taken, the land vested in the State. There
was no approach road to the suit land and thus, the said land
could not be utilised for the purpose for which, it was acquired.
The Board was not in a position to utilise the suit land and, thus,
E
it could be released in favour of the appellants, subject to
refunding the compensation amount received by the land
owners. More so, the compensation amount received by the
persons aggrieved in 1983 was received under protest, and
was refunded to them in 2010, by way of demand draft, though
F
the same was not accepted by the Board and was therefore,
returned to the tenure-holders. The appellants are still willing to
refund the amount of compensation received by the personsinterested, in pursuance of the illegal and void awards, dated
28.6.1983 and 14.8.1986. Therefore, the impugned judgment G
and order are liable to be set aside and the present appeals
should be allowed.
4. On the contrary, Shri S. Gomathi Nayagam, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents,
has vehemently opposed the appeals, contending that the
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
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
B
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
c 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,
0
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. Therefore, the
question of re-conveying the suit land in favour of the appellants
cannot possibly arise. Land can be released from acquisition
E
proceedings either under Section 48 of the Act, or in exercise
of powers under the General Clauses Act, 1897, but this can
be done only prior to the vesting of the land in the State, which
in itself is prior to taking possession thereof. The appellants,
being purchasers of the said suit land, after more than 20 years
of the Award, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings at
F
such a belated stage. More so, the vendors were not
competent to make any transfer, as none of them had good title
over the suit land. Therefore, any and all sale transactions are
illegal and void. The sale-deeds executed in favour of the
appellants, do not confer upon them, any title. More so, the
G subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the validity of the land
acquisition. The appeals lack merit and are therefore liable to
be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
H learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 623
OFFICER & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
However, before coming to the merit of the case, it is
A
desirable to consider the legal issues involved herein.
Whether subsequent purchaser can challenge the
acquisition proceedings:
6. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the
8
person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification
being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered
by this Court time and again.
In Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC
C
2112, this Court held that, any one who deals with the land
subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so,
at his own peril. In Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1996 SC 540, this Court held that a Section 4 notification gives
a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which
D
it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further
points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to
encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation
thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the
acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive
compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was
placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of india v.
Shri Shiv Kumar Bhargava & Ors., JT (1995) 6 SC 274.
E
7. Similarly, in UP. Jal Nigam v. Mis. Katra Properties
Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1170, this Court held that, purchase of
F
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
G
(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
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
sec 689).
c
9. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that a person who purchases land
subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with
respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the
acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the
D reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer
upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation
on the basis of his vendor's title.
The acquisition challenged by one - whether others can
E also take the benefit of the same.
10. The relief obtained by some persons, by approaching
the Court immediately after the cause of action has arisen,
cannot be the basis for other persons who have belatedly filed
F their petition, to take the benefit of earlier relief provided, for
the reason that, such persons cannot be permitted to take
impetus of an order passed by the court, at the behest of
another more diligent person. (Vide: Ratan Chandra
Sammanta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2276;
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6
G SCC 267; and Jagdih Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
AIR 1997 SC 2366).
11. In Abhey Ram (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2564. a three Judge Bench of this
H Court, dealt with an issue similar to the one involved herein.
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 625
OFFICER & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
The question that arose was whether the quashing of the A
notification/declaration under the Act by the court in respect of
other matters, would confer benefit upon non-parties also. The
Court held as under:
'The question then arises is whether the quashing of the
8
declaration by the Division Bench in respect of the other
matters would enure the benefit to the appellants also.
Though, prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel
is attractive, on deeper consideration, it is difficult to give
acceptance to the contention .....