Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
C. PADMA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides.
This 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.
The 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
came to be dismissed.
Shri 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.
Therefore, 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.
Under these circumstances, we think that the High Court
was right in refusing to entertain the writ petition.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.