& Ors Vs. The Dy. Secretary to The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors  INSC
1493 (22 November 1996)
O R D
have heard the counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court, made on June 29, 1993
in W.A. No.712/93.
admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] in
G.O.R. No.1392 Industries dated October 17, 1962, total extent of 6 acres 41
cents of land in Madhavaram village Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District in
Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of
Synthetic Rasina by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had
become final and possession of the land was taken on April 30, 1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed
by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which
is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a
request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in
respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in
G.O.M.S. No.816 Industries dated March 24, 1971 in favour of another subsidiary
company. Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another
subsidiary of the Company had requested from two acres 75 cents of land; the
same came to be assigned on lease hold basis by the Government after resumption
in terms of the agreement in G.O.M.S. No.439 Industries dated May 10, 1985. In G.O.M.S. No.546 Industries
dated March 30, 1986, the same came to be approved of.
Then the appellants challenged the original G.O.M.S. No.1392 Industries dated October 17, 1962 contending that since the regional
purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the
appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. The
Learned single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the acquired land
having already vested in the state, after receipt of the compensation by the
predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the
notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.
G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends
that when by operation of Section 44-B read with Section 40 of the Act, the
public purpose ceased to be existing, the acquisition became bad and therefore,
the G.O. was bad in law. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that
after the notification in G.O.R. 1392 dated October 17, 1962 was published, the
acquisition proceeding had become final, the compensation was paid to the
appellants' father and thereafter the lands stood vested in the State. In terms
of the agreement as contemplated in Chapter VII of the Act, the company had
delivered possession subject to the terms and conditions thereunder. It is seen
that one of the conditions was that on cessation of the public purpose, the
lands acquired would be surrendered to the Government. In furtherance thereof,
the lands came to be surrendered to the Government for resumption. The lands
then were allotted to SRVS Ltd., 5th respondent which is also a subsidiary
amalgamated company of the original company.
the public purpose for which acquisition was made was substituted for another
public purpose. Moreover, the question stood final settled 32 years ago and
hence the writ petition cannot be entertained after three decades on the ground
that either original purpose was not public purpose or the land cannot be used
for any other purpose.
these circumstances, we think that the High Court was right in refusing to
entertain the writ petition.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.