Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had allowed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification issued for the planned development of K.K. Nagar in Madras City. The State of Tamil Nadu had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on August 29, 1975, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on September 28, 1978, and an award under Section 11 in February 1983. The respondents, owners of about 20 acres of land, filed the writ petition on July 28, 1983, contending that the notification was vague and invalid because the Government had not formulated a specific scheme for construction of houses. The High Court accepted this contention and quashed the notification, relying on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef. Subsequently, in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, the Supreme Court held that a scheme under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act need not be completely formulated before publication of a notification under Section 4(1), and the notification was not vague on that account. The present appeal was separated for independent hearing because the respondents raised a distinguishing factual background relating to exclusion of lands under earlier Government Orders. The appellants argued that the respondents had originally claimed exclusion based on sanction for layout obtained in 1970 and notifications issued from time to time excluding certain lands, but the Government had withdrawn all earlier notifications by G.O. Ms. No. 583 dated March 11, 1983, and the writ petition was filed after that withdrawal and after the award. The foundation of the writ petition was thus knocked out. The respondents argued that since notifications had been quashed for some other lands covered in the same notifications, they stood on the same footing and were entitled to the same benefit, and they needed the land for personal residential construction. The Court found force in the appellants' contention and held that the question of vagueness of the notification was no longer res integra, being covered by the ratio in L. Krishnan's case. It further held that the exemption guidelines were only administrative instructions and could be withdrawn due to misuse. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after withdrawal of G.O. Ms. No. 583 and after the award, and that after taking possession all acquisition proceedings become final. The Court upheld the notifications and award, but considering that the respondents were 19 family members needing residential houses, it directed release of 1 acre 50 cents in Survey No.167/1B, north-east corner abutting Poonamallee High Road, in a contiguous block, from acquisition for their personal residence. The Court directed that a notification of withdrawal under Section 48(1) be issued within three months and that the order of exclusion was not to be treated as a precedent. The appeal was disposed of accordingly without costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Validity of Notification - Planned Development Scheme - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1) and 6 - The High Court quashed the notification as vague for lack of a specific housing scheme. The Supreme Court held that a scheme under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act need not be completely formulated before publication of notification under Section 4(1), and the notification was not vague on that ground. The order of the High Court was set aside and the notification upheld. Held that the notification was valid (Paras 1-3). B) Land Acquisition - Administrative Instructions - Withdrawal of Exemption Guidelines - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1) read with G.O. Ms. No. 583 dated March 11, 1983 - The High Court treated earlier notifications excluding lands as statutory and conferring a right to exemption from acquisition. The Supreme Court held that these were only administrative instructions issued by the Government for consideration by the Housing Board, and they could be withdrawn due to large-scale misuse and frustration of the scheme. Held that the Government had plenary power to withdraw its own guidelines (Paras 1-3). C) Land Acquisition - Vesting of Land - Award and Possession - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11, 12 and 16 - After passing of the award and taking of possession, all acquisition proceedings become final except for determination of compensation. Upon issuance of notice under Section 12, land vests in the State under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Held that there was no infirmity in the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 or the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer (Paras 1-3). D) Land Acquisition - Withdrawal from Acquisition - Personal Residential Purpose - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 48(1) - The respondents, being 19 family members, required land for construction of houses for personal occupation. The Supreme Court directed release of 1 acre 50 cents in Survey No.167/1B, north-east corner abutting Poonamallee High Road, in a contiguous block, from acquisition for their personal residence as a special case. The exclusion was not to be treated as a precedent, and a notification of withdrawal under Section 48(1) had to be issued within three months. Held that the notification under Section 4(1) was upheld except to that extent (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly quashed the land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on grounds of vagueness and absence of a fully formulated scheme; whether respondents were entitled to exclusion of their lands based on earlier exemption notifications/guidelines that were later withdrawn; and whether respondents could claim release of land for personal residential use.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order set aside; notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 upheld; award declared valid; 1 acre 50 cents in Survey No.167/1B, north-east corner abutting Poonamallee High Road, released from acquisition for respondents' personal residential use; notification under Section 48(1) to be issued within three months; exclusion not to be treated as precedent; no costs.
Law Points
- A scheme under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act need not be completely formulated before publication of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- notification is not vague on that ground. Exemption guidelines issued by the Government are administrative instructions
- not statutory notifications
- and can be withdrawn due to misuse or frustration of the scheme. After passing of an award and taking possession
- acquisition proceedings become final except for determination of compensation
- upon notice under Section 12
- land vests in the State under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Withdrawal of some lands for other public purposes does not invalidate the notification under Section 4(1). The Court may direct release of land from acquisition under Section 48(1) for personal residential purpose as a special case with undertaking.
