1.Madurai Bar Association, Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/964464
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnMar-27-2013
JudgeT.S.SIVAGNANAM
Appellant1.Madurai Bar Association,
Respondent1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:27. 03/2013 coram the hon'ble mr. justice t.s.sivagnanam w.p.(md) no.9759 o”1. madurai bar association, through its secretary, district court campus, madurai. 2.s.ravindran for himself and as power of attorney agent for 3.s.mahendran 4.s.surendran 5.s.ramanathan 6.g.uma 7.v.manimekalai 8.s.angayarkanni ... petitioner vs 1.the state of tamil nadu, rep. by its secretary, housing and urban development depart., chennai ”009. 2.the special tahsildar, (land acquisition), madurai south neighbourhood scheme, unit iii, madurai. 3.tamil nadu housing board, rep. by its chairman and managing director, anna salai, nandanam, chennai - 18. ... respondents prayer the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for issue of writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent under section 4(1) of land acquisition act as published in the tamil nadu government gazette dated 03.07.1991 and subsequent declaration made under section 6 of the land acquisition act published in the tamil nadu government gazette dated 29.07.1992 and award no.7/1994, dated 25.07.1994 and award no.15/1994, dated 28.07.1994 in so far as the lands of the petitioners 2 to 8 and quash the entire acquisition proceedings. prayer amended as per the order dated 30.07.12 in m.p.no.3 of 2012 in w.p.(md).no.9759 of 2012 !for petitioner ... mr.a.k.ramasamy for p1 mr.k.s.sreenivasan for pp 2 to 8 ^for respondents ... mr.r.anand raj g.a., for rr1 and 2 mr.s.nagarajan for r3 :order the prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as published in the tamil nadu government gazette dated 03.07.1991 and declaration made under section 6 of the land acquisition act published in the tamil nadu government gazette dated 29.07.1992 and the award no.7/1994, dated 25.07.1994 and award no.15/1994, dated 28.07.1994 and quash the entire acquisition proceedings.2. the first writ petitioner is the madurai bar association, through its secretary, district court campus, madurai and the petitioners 2 to 8 are the erstwhile landowners, whose lands are subject matter of acquisition proceedings and the petitioners 3 to 8 have been represented by the second petitioner as power of attorney agent.3. i have elaborately heard mr.a.k.ramasamy, secretary of the madurai bar association appearing for the first writ petitioner and mr.k.s.sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 to 8, mr.r.anand raj, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and mr.g.nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, tamil nadu housing board.4. the secretary of the madurai bar association appearing for the first petitioner contended that the land acquisition is bad in law, since two years time limit was prescribed for passing the award, has not been complied with. further, it is contended that the madurai bar association has entered into a memorandum of understanding (mou) with the petitioners 2 to 8, who are in possession of the lands and the actual possession having not been taken over by the respondents, there is no valid acquisition in the eye of law and all the lands are yet to be acquired. the learned counsel referred to the memorandum of understanding dated 09.03.2011, as well as the resolution stated to have been passed by the madurai bar association on 11.03.2011 and submitted that the lands would be utilized for the purpose of allotting house sites for advocates and since the respondents have not taken possession of the said lands, the acquisition itself is liable to be set aside.5. mr.k.s.sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners 2 to 8 submitted that the total extent of lands owned by the petitioners 2 to 8 are 70 acres & 42 cents and the petitioners earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by this court and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. thereafter, a review petition was filed and the same was also dismissed and subsequently, since the land remained unutilized, a representation was made for reconveyance of the land, since the same was not considered, the land owners filed w.p.no.2296 of 2010, for a direction to consider their representations for reconveyance. the writ petition was disposed of with certain direction and pursuant thereto, the first respondent by order dated 07.09.2010, rejected the request of the land owners and only at that point of time, the first respondent took a stand that the possession of the lands has been handed over to the tamil nadu housing board on 03.08.2009. the learned counsel referred to section 16 of the act and submitted that when the collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land only after taking possession, the same shall vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. therefore, it is submitted that the question of extinguishment of title does not arise and the property does not vest with the government free from all encumbrances, unless the possession is taken and the learned counsel referred to the copies of the chitta, adangal & patta and submitted that in the revenue records, the lands stand in the name of the landowners and it is evident from the said record that the landowners are raising crops. further, it is submitted that the mode of taking possession under the provisions of the act has not been specifically stipulated and therefore, it has to be seen as to how the possession was taken over, when the landowners are in actual possession of the lands, raising crops. further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that as per section 16 of the act it contemplates only taking over possession and the question of handing over possession does not arise.6. further, it is submitted that the counter affidavit does not state as to on what date the possession was taken, mode which was adopted for taking possession and such other matters. the learned counsel further submitted that since possession was not taken from the landowners, they entered into an agreement on 09.03.2011, agreeing to divide the property into housing plots. therefore, it is submitted that the landowners having not been dispossessed and they continue to be in possession of the lands and they have every right to enter into the memorandum of understanding with the first writ petitioner with a view to benefit their members. further, it is contended that the land acquisition act is an ex-proprietary statute and the procedure followed under the statute has to be scrupulously followed. in support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in raghbir singh sehrawat vs. stat eof haryana & ors., [air 201.sc 468]. further, the learned counsel submitted that while the landowners filed w.a.nos.768 to 770 of 2002, they have brought to the notice of the hon'ble division bench that they have availed a loan on the property from the bank and the said contention is also referred to by the hon'ble division bench.7. the learned counsel further submitted that the possession cannot be mere paper possession, but should be taking of actual possession and the landowners, who are in cultivation of lands, are entitled to notice before dispossession and the same having not been followed, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. in support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in special land acquisition officer bombay & ors vs. m/s.godrej and boyce [(1988)1 scc 50.and the decision of the hon'ble division bench of this court in r.sowrirajan vs. t.kala, [2007-2-l.w.-257]. further, it is submitted that the landowners have challenged the acquisition proceedings only in respect of the lands, which are owned by them and therefore, any order passed in the writ petition would only cover the lands owned by the petitioners/landowners and would have not an impact on the other lands or on the scheme evolved by the respondents. in support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in v.chandrasekaran & anr., vs. the administrative officer & ors., [2011-5-l.w-724]. finally, the learned counsel submitted that the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed, as the title to the property has not vested with the respondents as per the procedure under the land acquisition act and the entire acquisition is illegal.8. mr.r.anand raj, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 referred to the earlier round of litigation and submitted that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings failed and the writ petition as well as the writ appeal were dismissed, as the entire land acquisition proceedings was completed as per the procedure under the land acquisition act. the learned government advocate referred to the transfer charge certificate dated 25.07.1994 and 28.07.1994, and submitted that the land has been handed over to the tamil nadu housing board and once such certificate is issued, the lands vest with the housing board. the learned counsel further submitted that after the dismissal of the writ appeal, the landowners filed review petition before the hon'ble division bench, which was also dismissed on 23.02.2007. further, it is submitted that there is no cultivation in the said lands as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and in this regard, reference has been made to the averment contained in the counter affidavit.9. mr.s.nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the tamil nadu housing board reiterated the contention raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the mortgage loan availed by the landowners from the state bank of india during 2006 amounts to deceiving the government property, when the awards were passed during the year 1994 itself. further, it is contended that the mou with the first writ petitioner itself is improper and no one is empowered to propose housing scheme either individually or collectively on the lands, which were acquired by the government and there is no lawful right for the petitioners 2 to 8 to enter into a mou. it is submitted that after passing the award and taking possession under section 16 of the act, the acquired lands vest with the government free from all encumbrances and the government have decided to implement the housing scheme at thoppur and uchapatti in an area measuring 736.89 acres and a separate division of the housing scheme has started and functioning for implementing the scheme and the petitioners 2 to 8 are filing series of litigations and delaying the matter. further, it is submitted that even at the time of processing the land acquisition proceedings, it was found that there is no cultivable plantation in the said lands as per field report and the award passed by the land acquisition officer and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is incorrect.10. i have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record and given my anxious consideration to the entire facts.11. the sheet anchor of the arguments as focused by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 to 8, who shall be referred to as the 'landowners' in this writ petition is that the possession has not been taken from the landowners as required under section 16 of the act and they continue to remain in possession. in support of the said contention, the landowners would place reliance on the revenue records namely, chitta, adangal and patta and submitted that in the said lands cultivation is being carried on. it is the further case of the landowners that as per the provisions of section 16 of the act, the manner in which possession has to be taken over, has not been stipulated and therefore, unless the petitioners are given notice of dispossession in the manner known to law, the question of vesting, does not arise and in the instant case, the property never vested with the government under section 16 of the act. therefore, it is contended that the acquisition proceedings commencing from 4(1) notification culminating in the award has to be quashed.12. at this stage, i do not propose to go into the aspect regarding the mou entered into between the landowners and the first writ petitioner as it would be first necessary to examine as to whether the landowners are entitled to maintain this writ petition for quashing the land acquisition proceedings.13. after having elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the landowners, the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents as well as the learned counsel appearing for the tamil nadu housing board and after having perused the material papers filed along with the writ petition, this court has no hesitation to hold that the landowners namely the petitioners 2 to 8 are not entitled to maintain this writ petition seeking for quashing the land acquisition proceedings. i support such conclusion with the following reasons.14. a notification under section 4(1) of the act for acquisition was issued during 1992 and a notice of enquiry under section 5a was issued and after considering the objections, a declaration under section 6 was passed. thereafter, the award was also passed, determining the compensation payable to the landowners. the landowners/petitioners 2 to 8 and others filed three writ petitions being w.p.nos.17051, 17050 & 16039 of 1994. in the said writ petitions, prayer was made to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the act as lapsed by virtue of the time limit prescribed under section 11a of the act. the writ petitions were heard by a learned single judge before whom two contentions were raised. the first being that the award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of section 6 declaration and therefore, the acquisition proceedings lapsed. the second contention which was raised was that the funds were not available at the time of passing the award, therefore, the acquisition was vitiated. this court by order dated 05.02.2002, dismissed the writ petition holding that the contention raised by the landowners/writ petitioners therein is incorrect, as the award was passed well within two years. further, this court found that a sum of rs.5,69,293/- was deposited in the civil court and therefore, the contention that there was no funds available at the time of passing the award, is incorrect. the landowners preferred appeal before the hon'ble division bench raising the same contention once over again. the hon'ble division bench after taking note of the submissions, dismissed the writ appeal with certain observations. while dismissing the writ appeal, the hon'ble division bench observed that there is no serious objection or contra arguments to the effect as regards the findings of the learned single judge that the award was passed within two years and in the light of the said position, the first contention raised by the landowners/appellants was rejected.15. secondly, it was contended that loan was availed by the landowners from a nationalized bank and the landowners/appellants have cultivated the lands and therefore, the respondents are not justified in pursuing the land acquisition. it was further contended that the landowners are agriculturists and depending on the income from the land in question, direction may be issued to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings. the hon'ble division bench categorically observed that the above contentions cannot be considered by this court. further, the hon'ble division bench took note of the stand taken by the housing board that substantial extent of land has been taken over and further taken over by the tamil nadu housing board on 01.07.2003 and a letter from the special tahsildar, land acquisition, south neighbourhood scheme shows that a request has been made to hand over the balance extent of land measuring 38.91.00 hectares and from the letter of the tamil nadu housing board, it revealed that the board already proposed jawaharlal nehru urban renewal mission scheme for a total extent of 525.36 acres in uchapatti village and the lands covered in award nos.6, 7 & 15 of 1994, measuring 38.91.00 hectares are absolutely required for the housing board for comprehensive development of the scheme. in the light of the stand taken by the housing board, the hon'ble division bench observed that it is not possible to consider the grievance of the landowners/appellants. however, the appellants were free to make appropriate representation to the government and the government may consider and dispose of the same within 12 weeks. thus, the contention raised by the appellants that because they are agriculturist depending on the income from the lands and therefore, the acquisition has to be withdrawn, were all negatived by the hon'ble division bench.16. thus on and after the dismissal of the writ appeals by the hon'ble division bench on 14.07.2006, the landowners had absolutely no semblance of right over the said lands. based on the observations made by the hon'ble division bench, it appears that one of the landowners/appellants, the petitioners 2 to 8 herein along with one tmt.s.jaya submitted a representation to the government. the government by letter dated 20.12.2006, rejected the request made by the petitioners 2 to 8 for reconveyance and it was stated that the lands in survey no.94/1a etc., measuring an extent of 104.11 acres are absolutely necessary for implementation of the housing scheme and jnnurm scheme.17. it is not in dispute that the petitioners 2 to 8 did not challenge the government letter dated 20.12.2006, by which their request for reconveyance was rejected. however, they filed another writ petition being w.p.no.2296 of 2010, wherein a prayer was made to consider their representations, dated 25.04.2008. the copy of the said representation is filed in the typed set of papers at page no.50, from which it is seen that the landowners accepted the fact that the property vests with the respondents and their contention was, the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired either by the government or by the housing board, therefore, the land has to be reconveyed to them under the provisions of the section 48b of the act. all that the landowners stated was that they are depending upon the acquired lands and they have got every right to request for reconveyance or release of the lands under the land acquisition act, since the government no longer is in need of the lands. this court passed an order on 25.02.2010 in the said writ petition being w.p.no.2296 of 2010, with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation. thereupon the first respondent passed an order on 07.09.2010, rejecting the petitioner's request. at this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the said order in its entirety:- i am directed to invite your attention to the reference first cited , and to state that as par the direction of madurai bench of madras high court order dated 25.02. 2010 in w.p.(md).no 2296 of 2010your representation dated 22.03.2010 for reconvayance of lands comprised in s.nos.94/1b,1c,d,e,f,g,h&i, measuring an extent of 70.45.cents in uchampatti village,thirumangalam taluck,madurai district,has been carefully examined by the government in consultation with the tamilnadu housing board. 2.in this connection , i am to stated that the lands comprised in s.no.94/1b,94/1c,and 94/1d measuring15.13.5. hectre (or)37.38 acres notified for acquisition under section4(1)of l.a.act,was approved by the governmentin g.o ms no.933,housing and urban development dated06.06.1991.and the draft declaration under section 6.of l.a.act was approved by the government in g.o.ms.no474 , housing and urban development department dated 27.7.1992. the land is s.no.94/1e to 94/1imeasuring 21.23.0 hectare (or)52.43acres notified for acquisition under section 4(1)of l.a.actwas approved by the government in g.o.ms no989,housing and urban development ,dated 14.9.1991,and the draft declaration under section 6 of land acquisition act was approved by the g.o.ms.no476, housing and urban development deportment, dated 27.7.1992.award was passed vide award no.7/94,dated 25.7.1994 and 15/94 dated 25.7.1994 for the above lands. 3.further as per the judgement of high court,chennai dated 14.7.2006 in w.a.no 768 to 770 of 2002,you have already given representation to the government to reconvey of the above lands under section 48-b 0f l.a.act ,and your request has been rejected in government letter no.46855/l.a.3(1)/02-19 dated 20.12.2006 stating that, the lands are absolutely necessary for implementing housing scheme and jawargarlal nehru urban removal mission scheme (jnnurm). the passion of the lands have been handed overto the tamilnadu housing board on 03.08.2009 only due to court litigation and action is being taken to implement housing scheme in the said lands.4. an extent of 754.09 acres of land were taken over by the tamil nadu housing board at uchampatti village for formation of housing scheme, from the year 1988 onwards. out of 754.09 acres of lands, an extent 100.71 acres of land were so far utilized by the tamil nadu housing board. the petitioners are at liberty to receive the award amount from the sub-court, madurai.5. further, the lands sought for re-conveyance are located in the western end of the uchapatti village scheme and adjacent to the scheme boundary. since the lands are essentially required for formation of comprehensive housing scheme, your request for reconveyance of the lands in s.nos.94/1b, 1c, d, e, f, g, h & i, measuring an extent of 70.45 cents in uchampatti village, thirumangalam taluk, madurai district is not feasible of compliance. hence, your request is hereby rejected.18. it is not in dispute that the petitioners/landowners have not challenged the letter dated 07.09.2010. curiously enough, they have filed the present writ petition once again challenging the land acquisition proceedings commencing from section 4(1) of the act culminating in the award. in the light of the above factual position, it has to be held that the present writ petition is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. the settled general principles of res judicata are that first a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly speaking on the point is, as a plea, a bar or as evidence, conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court. secondly that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly on the point, is, in like manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose. but either the judgment of a court of concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction nor of any matter incidentally cognizable nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment.19. it has been held in a.ramaswamy vs. state of tamil nadu 1987-100-l.w- 47, that the principles of res judicata is not a technical principle, but a fundamental doctrine aimed at putting an end to litigation and that doctrine would apply equally in all courts irrespective of the form, the proceedings have taken, provided it was on the same cause. further, it has been held that if the foundation on which the principles of res judicata is rested is borne in mind, then it would be evident that it is not the form of proceedings in which the adjudication was made that matters, but the real essence of it. at this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant paragraph of the judgment:- 7. it may now be considered whether the proceeding operating as res judicata must only be a suit. no doubt, s.11. c.p.c. uses the expression "former suit" and "subsequent suit" and s.26, c.p.c. refers to the institution of suits by the presentation of a plaint. the rule of res judicata is rested on considerations of public policy. no doubt, it has some technical aspects also. but the twin principles which form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata are that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction and it is also in public interest that individuals should not be twice vexed with the same kind of litigation. if these principles are borne in mind, it would at once be apparent that the principle of res judicata is not a technical principle, but a fundamental doctrine aimed at putting an end to litigation and that doctrine would apply equally in all courts irrespective of the form the proceedings have taken, provided it was on the same cause. it will be useful in this connection to refer to halsbury's laws of england, iv edition, paragraph 1535 at page 1035 to the following effect: "the doctrine applies equally in all courts, and it is immaterial in what court the former proceedings were taken, provided only that it was a court of competent jurisdiction, or what form the proceeding took, provided it was really for the same cause." 20. the hon'ble supreme court in brij narain singh vs. adya prasad (dead) & ors., [(2008) 11 scc 558], while explaining the doctrine of res judicata held that it is a principle of judicial administration and is based on the common law maxim of public policy aiming at finality of litigation and preventing a litigant from being tried twice over on the same issue.21. as noticed above, the earlier challenge by the petitioners 2 to 8 was to the same land acquisition proceedings, which were dismissed and the hon'ble division bench confirmed the order passed in the writ petition and the plea that they are carrying on agriculture in the said lands, therefore, the land has to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings, was rejected by the hon'ble division bench and the review petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. thereafter, once over again, the petitioners 2 to 8 herein cannot maintain the present writ petition, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. furthermore, after the dismissal of the review petition, the petitioners 2 to 8 reconciled with the fact that the acquisition has been completed and the land has been vested with the government and therefore, they sought for reconveyance. the fact that the petitioners 2 to 8 sought for reconveyance itself is sufficient to hold that they have accepted the position that the land vests with the government and their only plea was, the lands remained unutilized and therefore, the land should be handed over back to them. this request made by the petitioners was not accepted, but rejected by orders dated 20.12.2006 and 07.09.2010. both these orders have not been challenged by the petitioners 2 to 8. in such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to question the land acquisition proceedings once over again. further, the petitioners 2 to 8 have exhausted all avenues and before all forums they were unsuccessful.22. the hon'ble supreme court in allahabad development authority vs. nasiruzzaman & ors., [(1996) 6 scc 424], was considering an appeal arising out of a judgment of a division bench of the allahabad high court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the high court was right in passing the order dated 15.12.1993 and the order dated 29.01.1990 declaring that the acquisition proceedings by operation of section 11-a, as amended by act 68 of 1984, stood lapsed and direction given for delivery of possession to the respondents would be in accordance with law. the hon'ble supreme court after referring to the earlier decision in lt.governor of h.p. vs. avinash sharma [(1970) 2 scc 148.held that once the lands stood vested in the state free from all encumbrances there is no question of divesting the land and revesting the land in the erstwhile owner and the only right the erstwhile owner has is as to the determination of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the act. in the said case, it was contended that the award was not made within two years from the commencement of the amendment act, namely, 24.08.1984 and consequently, a declaration was given that the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 stood lapsed. the correctness of the findings of the high court was subject matter of appeal before the hon'ble supreme court. the hon'ble supreme court while holding that the order of the division bench of the high court was clearly erroneous, held as follows:- 6....in view of the fact that land had already stood vested in the state free from all encumbrances, the question of divesting does not arise. after the vesting has taken place, the question of lapse of notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 would not arise. consideration from this perspective, original direction itself was delivery of possession of the land, in consequence, was not valid in law....23. in view of the above findings rendered by this court, the question of going into the aspect as to whether the possession was taken over in the appropriate manner or not, does not arise. for the sake of argument, if the petitioners' case is to be accepted, it would amount to setting at naught or reversing the order passed by the hon'ble division bench, which upheld the acquisition proceedings. such procedure is unknown to legal jurisprudence. hence, the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings must fail and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.24. the next aspect of the matter is that the first petitioner claimed that they have entered into a mou with the respondents 2 to 8. the said mou is said to have been entered into on 09.03.2011. it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners 2 to 8 had any semblance or legal right on the date when the parties entered into a mou. even as per covenants contained in the mou, the petitioners 2 to 8 have stated that they are willing to offer to hand over the acquired land of 70 acres and 52 cents to the first writ petitioner, if the government passed an order de-notifying the acquired lands. it is to be borne in mind that the request for reconveyance or releasing from the acquisition was rejected on 20.12.2006 and subsequently, on 07.09.2010. conspicuously, in the mou, there is no reference to both the orders nor there is any reference to the writ petition, writ appeal and the review petition filed by the petitioners 2 to 8 and the order of dismissal passed by this court, dismissing all the cases.25. furthermore, the petitioners 2 to 8 contended that they have created a mortgage on the land with the state bank of india and it is a registered mortgage. the housing board in their counter affidavit would contend that the action of the petitioners 2 to 8 is illegal and amounts to deceiving the government body, especially when the award was passed way back in 1994. however, in the mou entered into with the first writ petitioner, there is no reference to the said mortgage. therefore, this court is not inclined to go into the veracity or validity of the mou in this writ petition, since the this court has concluded that the writ petition filed by the petitioners 2 to 8 is absolutely devoid of merits, barred by res judicata and amounts to abuse of process of court. in the absence of any legal right vested with the first petitioner, the first writ petitioner could not have in the first place joined along with the petitioners 2 to 8 to file this writ petition, as the first petitioner would not have any locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings, more so, when they claimed to have entered into a mou with the petitioners 2 to 8 and in the said mou, the petitioners 2 to 8 have stated that they are willing to offer the lands to the first writ petitioner in the event of the government releasing the lands. this situation appears to be impossible of compliance as already referred to, that is, much prior to the mou, the prayer for reconveyance/release the acquisition proceedings was rejected by the government.26. hence, for all the above reasons, the writ petition being thoroughly misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed. no costs. pbn copy to:- 1.the state of tamil nadu, rep. by its secretary, housing and urban development depart., chennai ”009. 2.the special tahsildar, (land acquisition), madurai south neighbourhood scheme, unit iii, madurai. 3.tamil nadu housing board, rep. by its chairman and managing director, anna salai, nandanam, chennai - 18.
Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

27. 03/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD) No.9759 o”

1. Madurai Bar Association, Through its Secretary, District Court Campus, Madurai. 2.S.Ravindran for himself and as power of Attorney Agent for 3.S.Mahendran 4.S.Surendran 5.S.Ramanathan 6.G.Uma 7.V.Manimekalai 8.S.Angayarkanni ... Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Depart., Chennai ”

009. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme, Unit III, Madurai. 3.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 18. ... Respondents Prayer The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 03.07.1991 and subsequent declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.07.1992 and Award No.7/1994, dated 25.07.1994 and award No.15/1994, dated 28.07.1994 in so far as the lands of the petitioners 2 to 8 and quash the entire acquisition proceedings. Prayer amended as per the order dated 30.07.12 in M.P.No.3 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.9759 of 2012 !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.K.Ramasamy for P1 Mr.K.S.Sreenivasan for PP 2 to 8 ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Anand Raj G.A., for RR1 and 2 Mr.S.Nagarajan for R3 :ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 03.07.1991 and declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.07.1992 and the award No.7/1994, dated 25.07.1994 and award No.15/1994, dated 28.07.1994 and quash the entire acquisition proceedings.

2. The first writ petitioner is the Madurai Bar Association, through its Secretary, District Court Campus, Madurai and the petitioners 2 to 8 are the erstwhile landowners, whose lands are subject matter of acquisition proceedings and the petitioners 3 to 8 have been represented by the second petitioner as power of attorney agent.

3. I have elaborately heard Mr.A.K.Ramasamy, Secretary of the Madurai Bar Association appearing for the first writ petitioner and Mr.K.S.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 to 8, Mr.R.Anand Raj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.G.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

4. The Secretary of the Madurai Bar Association appearing for the first petitioner contended that the land acquisition is bad in law, since two years time limit was prescribed for passing the award, has not been complied with. Further, it is contended that the Madurai Bar Association has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the petitioners 2 to 8, who are in possession of the lands and the actual possession having not been taken over by the respondents, there is no valid acquisition in the eye of law and all the lands are yet to be acquired. The learned counsel referred to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.03.2011, as well as the resolution stated to have been passed by the Madurai Bar Association on 11.03.2011 and submitted that the lands would be utilized for the purpose of allotting house sites for Advocates and since the respondents have not taken possession of the said lands, the acquisition itself is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr.K.S.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners 2 to 8 submitted that the total extent of lands owned by the petitioners 2 to 8 are 70 acres & 42 cents and the petitioners earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition was filed and the same was also dismissed and subsequently, since the land remained unutilized, a representation was made for reconveyance of the land, since the same was not considered, the land owners filed W.P.No.2296 of 2010, for a direction to consider their representations for reconveyance. The writ petition was disposed of with certain direction and pursuant thereto, the first respondent by order dated 07.09.2010, rejected the request of the land owners and only at that point of time, the first respondent took a stand that the possession of the lands has been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 03.08.2009. The learned counsel referred to Section 16 of the Act and submitted that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land only after taking possession, the same shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it is submitted that the question of extinguishment of title does not arise and the property does not vest with the Government free from all encumbrances, unless the possession is taken and the learned counsel referred to the copies of the chitta, adangal & patta and submitted that in the Revenue records, the lands stand in the name of the landowners and it is evident from the said record that the landowners are raising crops. Further, it is submitted that the mode of taking possession under the provisions of the Act has not been specifically stipulated and therefore, it has to be seen as to how the possession was taken over, when the landowners are in actual possession of the lands, raising crops. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that as per Section 16 of the Act it contemplates only taking over possession and the question of handing over possession does not arise.

6. Further, it is submitted that the counter affidavit does not state as to on what date the possession was taken, mode which was adopted for taking possession and such other matters. The learned counsel further submitted that since possession was not taken from the landowners, they entered into an agreement on 09.03.2011, agreeing to divide the property into housing plots. Therefore, it is submitted that the landowners having not been dispossessed and they continue to be in possession of the lands and they have every right to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with the first writ petitioner with a view to benefit their members. Further, it is contended that the Land Acquisition Act is an ex-proprietary statute and the procedure followed under the statute has to be scrupulously followed. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. Stat eof Haryana & Ors., [AIR 201.SC 468]. Further, the learned counsel submitted that while the landowners filed W.A.Nos.768 to 770 of 2002, they have brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench that they have availed a loan on the property from the Bank and the said contention is also referred to by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that the possession cannot be mere paper possession, but should be taking of actual possession and the landowners, who are in cultivation of lands, are entitled to notice before dispossession and the same having not been followed, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Bombay & Ors vs. M/s.Godrej and Boyce [(1988)1 SCC 50.and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in R.Sowrirajan vs. T.Kala, [2007-2-L.W.-257]. Further, it is submitted that the landowners have challenged the acquisition proceedings only in respect of the lands, which are owned by them and therefore, any order passed in the writ petition would only cover the lands owned by the petitioners/landowners and would have not an impact on the other lands or on the scheme evolved by the respondents. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Chandrasekaran & Anr., vs. The Administrative Officer & Ors., [2011-5-L.W-724]. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed, as the title to the property has not vested with the respondents as per the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and the entire acquisition is illegal.

8. Mr.R.Anand Raj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 referred to the earlier round of litigation and submitted that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings failed and the writ petition as well as the writ appeal were dismissed, as the entire land acquisition proceedings was completed as per the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Government Advocate referred to the Transfer Charge Certificate dated 25.07.1994 and 28.07.1994, and submitted that the land has been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and once such certificate is issued, the lands vest with the Housing Board. The learned counsel further submitted that after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the landowners filed Review Petition before the Hon'ble Division Bench, which was also dismissed on 23.02.2007. Further, it is submitted that there is no cultivation in the said lands as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and in this regard, reference has been made to the averment contained in the counter affidavit.

9. Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board reiterated the contention raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the mortgage loan availed by the landowners from the State Bank of India during 2006 amounts to deceiving the Government property, when the awards were passed during the year 1994 itself. Further, it is contended that the MoU with the first writ petitioner itself is improper and no one is empowered to propose housing scheme either individually or collectively on the lands, which were acquired by the Government and there is no lawful right for the petitioners 2 to 8 to enter into a MoU. It is submitted that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired lands vest with the Government free from all encumbrances and the Government have decided to implement the Housing Scheme at Thoppur and Uchapatti in an area measuring 736.89 acres and a separate division of the Housing Scheme has started and functioning for implementing the scheme and the petitioners 2 to 8 are filing series of litigations and delaying the matter. Further, it is submitted that even at the time of processing the land acquisition proceedings, it was found that there is no cultivable plantation in the said lands as per field report and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is incorrect.

10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record and given my anxious consideration to the entire facts.

11. The sheet anchor of the arguments as focused by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 to 8, who shall be referred to as the 'landowners' in this writ petition is that the possession has not been taken from the landowners as required under Section 16 of the Act and they continue to remain in possession. In support of the said contention, the landowners would place reliance on the Revenue records namely, chitta, adangal and patta and submitted that in the said lands cultivation is being carried on. It is the further case of the landowners that as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, the manner in which possession has to be taken over, has not been stipulated and therefore, unless the petitioners are given notice of dispossession in the manner known to law, the question of vesting, does not arise and in the instant case, the property never vested with the Government under Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, it is contended that the acquisition proceedings commencing from 4(1) notification culminating in the award has to be quashed.

12. At this stage, I do not propose to go into the aspect regarding the MoU entered into between the landowners and the first writ petitioner as it would be first necessary to examine as to whether the landowners are entitled to maintain this writ petition for quashing the land acquisition proceedings.

13. After having elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the landowners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and after having perused the material papers filed along with the writ petition, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the landowners namely the petitioners 2 to 8 are not entitled to maintain this writ petition seeking for quashing the Land Acquisition Proceedings. I support such conclusion with the following reasons.

14. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition was issued during 1992 and a notice of enquiry under Section 5A was issued and after considering the objections, a declaration under Section 6 was passed. Thereafter, the award was also passed, determining the compensation payable to the landowners. The landowners/petitioners 2 to 8 and others filed three writ petitions being W.P.Nos.17051, 17050 & 16039 of 1994. In the said writ petitions, prayer was made to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act as lapsed by virtue of the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. The writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge before whom two contentions were raised. The first being that the award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration and therefore, the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The second contention which was raised was that the funds were not available at the time of passing the award, therefore, the acquisition was vitiated. This court by order dated 05.02.2002, dismissed the writ petition holding that the contention raised by the landowners/writ petitioners therein is incorrect, as the award was passed well within two years. Further, this Court found that a sum of Rs.5,69,293/- was deposited in the Civil Court and therefore, the contention that there was no funds available at the time of passing the award, is incorrect. The landowners preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench raising the same contention once over again. The Hon'ble Division Bench after taking note of the submissions, dismissed the writ appeal with certain observations. While dismissing the writ appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that there is no serious objection or contra arguments to the effect as regards the findings of the learned Single Judge that the award was passed within two years and in the light of the said position, the first contention raised by the landowners/appellants was rejected.

15. Secondly, it was contended that loan was availed by the landowners from a Nationalized Bank and the landowners/appellants have cultivated the lands and therefore, the respondents are not justified in pursuing the land acquisition. It was further contended that the landowners are agriculturists and depending on the income from the land in question, direction may be issued to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble Division Bench categorically observed that the above contentions cannot be considered by this Court. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench took note of the stand taken by the Housing Board that substantial extent of land has been taken over and further taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 01.07.2003 and a letter from the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, South Neighbourhood Scheme shows that a request has been made to hand over the balance extent of land measuring 38.91.00 hectares and from the letter of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, it revealed that the Board already proposed Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission Scheme for a total extent of 525.36 acres in Uchapatti village and the lands covered in award Nos.6, 7 & 15 of 1994, measuring 38.91.00 hectares are absolutely required for the Housing Board for comprehensive development of the scheme. In the light of the stand taken by the Housing Board, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that it is not possible to consider the grievance of the landowners/appellants. However, the appellants were free to make appropriate representation to the Government and the Government may consider and dispose of the same within 12 weeks. Thus, the contention raised by the appellants that because they are agriculturist depending on the income from the lands and therefore, the acquisition has to be withdrawn, were all negatived by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

16. Thus on and after the dismissal of the Writ Appeals by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 14.07.2006, the landowners had absolutely no semblance of right over the said lands. Based on the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench, it appears that one of the landowners/appellants, the petitioners 2 to 8 herein along with one Tmt.S.Jaya submitted a representation to the Government. The Government by letter dated 20.12.2006, rejected the request made by the petitioners 2 to 8 for reconveyance and it was stated that the lands in survey No.94/1A etc., measuring an extent of 104.11 acres are absolutely necessary for implementation of the Housing Scheme and JNNURM Scheme.

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioners 2 to 8 did not challenge the Government letter dated 20.12.2006, by which their request for reconveyance was rejected. However, they filed another writ petition being W.P.No.2296 of 2010, wherein a prayer was made to consider their representations, dated 25.04.2008. The copy of the said representation is filed in the typed set of papers at page No.50, from which it is seen that the landowners accepted the fact that the property vests with the respondents and their contention was, the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired either by the Government or by the Housing Board, therefore, the land has to be reconveyed to them under the provisions of the Section 48B of the Act. All that the landowners stated was that they are depending upon the acquired lands and they have got every right to request for reconveyance or release of the lands under the Land Acquisition Act, since the Government no longer is in need of the lands. This Court passed an order on 25.02.2010 in the said writ petition being W.P.No.2296 of 2010, with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation. Thereupon the first respondent passed an order on 07.09.2010, rejecting the petitioner's request. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the said order in its entirety:- I am directed to invite your attention to the reference first cited , and to state that as par The direction of Madurai bench of madras high court order dated 25.02. 2010 in W.P.(MD).No 2296 of 2010your representation dated 22.03.2010 for reconvayance of lands comprised in S.Nos.94/1B,1C,D,E,F,G,H&I, measuring an extent of 70.45.cents in uchampatti village,Thirumangalam Taluck,Madurai district,has been carefully examined by the government In consultation with the Tamilnadu Housing board. 2.in this connection , I am to stated that the lands comprised in S.No.94/1B,94/1C,and 94/1D measuring15.13.5. Hectre (or)37.38 Acres notified for acquisition under section4(1)of L.A.Act,was approved by the governmentin G.O Ms No.933,Housing and Urban Development Dated06.06.1991.and the draft declaration under section 6.of L.A.Act was approved by the government in G.O.Ms.No474 , Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.7.1992. the land is S.No.94/1E to 94/1Imeasuring 21.23.0 Hectare (or)52.43acres notified for acquisition under section 4(1)of L.A.Actwas approved by the government In G.O.Ms No989,Housing and Urban Development ,dated 14.9.1991,and the draft declaration Under section 6 of land acquisition act was approved by the G.O.Ms.No476, Housing and Urban Development Deportment, dated 27.7.1992.Award was passed vide Award No.7/94,dated 25.7.1994 and 15/94 dated 25.7.1994 for the above lands. 3.Further as per the judgement of High court,Chennai dated 14.7.2006 in W.A.No 768 to 770 of 2002,you have already given representation to the government to reconvey of the above lands under section 48-b 0f L.A.Act ,and your request has been rejected in government letter No.46855/L.A.3(1)/02-19 dated 20.12.2006 stating that, the lands are absolutely necessary for implementing Housing Scheme and Jawargarlal Nehru Urban Removal Mission Scheme (JNNURM). The passion of the lands have been handed overto the Tamilnadu Housing board on 03.08.2009 only due to Court litigation and action is being taken to implement housing scheme in the said lands.

4. An extent of 754.09 Acres of land were taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at Uchampatti village for formation of Housing Scheme, from the year 1988 onwards. Out of 754.09 Acres of lands, an extent 100.71 acres of land were so far utilized by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioners are at liberty to receive the award amount from the Sub-Court, Madurai.

5. Further, the lands sought for re-conveyance are located in the western end of the Uchapatti village Scheme and adjacent to the Scheme Boundary. Since the lands are essentially required for formation of comprehensive Housing Scheme, your request for reconveyance of the lands in S.Nos.94/1B, 1C, D, E, F, G, H & I, measuring an extent of 70.45 cents in Uchampatti village, thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai district is not feasible of Compliance. Hence, your request is hereby rejected.

18. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/landowners have not challenged the letter dated 07.09.2010. Curiously enough, they have filed the present writ petition once again challenging the Land Acquisition proceedings commencing from Section 4(1) of the Act culminating in the award. In the light of the above factual position, it has to be held that the present writ petition is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. The settled general principles of res judicata are that first a judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly speaking on the point is, as a plea, a bar or as evidence, conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court. Secondly that the judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly on the point, is, in like manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another Court, for a different purpose. But either the judgment of a Court of concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction nor of any matter incidentally cognizable nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment.

19. It has been held in A.Ramaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1987-100-L.W- 47, that the principles of res judicata is not a technical principle, but a fundamental doctrine aimed at putting an end to litigation and that doctrine would apply equally in all courts irrespective of the form, the proceedings have taken, provided it was on the same cause. Further, it has been held that if the foundation on which the principles of res judicata is rested is borne in mind, then it would be evident that it is not the form of proceedings in which the adjudication was made that matters, but the real essence of it. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant paragraph of the judgment:- 7. It may now be considered whether the proceeding operating as res judicata must only be a suit. No doubt, S.11. C.P.C. uses the expression "former suit" and "subsequent suit" and S.26, C.P.C. refers to the institution of suits by the presentation of a plaint. The rule of res judicata is rested on considerations of public policy. No doubt, it has some technical aspects also. But the twin principles which form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata are that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to binding decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction and it is also in public interest that individuals should not be twice vexed with the same kind of litigation. If these principles are borne in mind, it would at once be apparent that the principle of res judicata is not a technical principle, but a fundamental doctrine aimed at putting an end to litigation and that doctrine would apply equally in all Courts irrespective of the form the proceedings have taken, provided it was on the same cause. It will be useful in this connection to refer to Halsbury's Laws of England, IV Edition, Paragraph 1535 at page 1035 to the following effect: "The doctrine applies equally in all Courts, and it is immaterial in what Court the former proceedings were taken, provided only that it was a Court of competent jurisdiction, or what form the proceeding took, provided it was really for the same cause." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Narain Singh vs. Adya Prasad (Dead) & Ors., [(2008) 11 SCC 558], while explaining the doctrine of res judicata held that it is a principle of judicial administration and is based on the common law maxim of public policy aiming at finality of litigation and preventing a litigant from being tried twice over on the same issue.

21. As noticed above, the earlier challenge by the petitioners 2 to 8 was to the same land acquisition proceedings, which were dismissed and the Hon'ble Division Bench confirmed the order passed in the writ petition and the plea that they are carrying on agriculture in the said lands, therefore, the land has to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings, was rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the review petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, once over again, the petitioners 2 to 8 herein cannot maintain the present writ petition, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, after the dismissal of the review petition, the petitioners 2 to 8 reconciled with the fact that the acquisition has been completed and the land has been vested with the Government and therefore, they sought for reconveyance. The fact that the petitioners 2 to 8 sought for reconveyance itself is sufficient to hold that they have accepted the position that the land vests with the Government and their only plea was, the lands remained unutilized and therefore, the land should be handed over back to them. This request made by the petitioners was not accepted, but rejected by orders dated 20.12.2006 and 07.09.2010. Both these orders have not been challenged by the petitioners 2 to 8. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to question the land acquisition proceedings once over again. Further, the petitioners 2 to 8 have exhausted all avenues and before all forums they were unsuccessful.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Development Authority vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., [(1996) 6 SCC 424], was considering an appeal arising out of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the High Court was right in passing the order dated 15.12.1993 and the order dated 29.01.1990 declaring that the acquisition proceedings by operation of Section 11-A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, stood lapsed and direction given for delivery of possession to the respondents would be in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the earlier decision in Lt.Governor of H.P. vs. Avinash Sharma [(1970) 2 SCC 148.held that once the lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances there is no question of divesting the land and revesting the land in the erstwhile owner and the only right the erstwhile owner has is as to the determination of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the said case, it was contended that the award was not made within two years from the commencement of the Amendment Act, namely, 24.08.1984 and consequently, a declaration was given that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 stood lapsed. The correctness of the findings of the High Court was subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the order of the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly erroneous, held as follows:- 6....In view of the fact that land had already stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, the question of divesting does not arise. After the vesting has taken place, the question of lapse of notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 would not arise. Consideration from this perspective, original direction itself was delivery of possession of the land, in consequence, was not valid in law....

23. In view of the above findings rendered by this Court, the question of going into the aspect as to whether the possession was taken over in the appropriate manner or not, does not arise. For the sake of argument, if the petitioners' case is to be accepted, it would amount to setting at naught or reversing the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, which upheld the acquisition proceedings. Such procedure is unknown to legal jurisprudence. Hence, the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings must fail and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

24. The next aspect of the matter is that the first petitioner claimed that they have entered into a MoU with the respondents 2 to 8. The said MoU is said to have been entered into on 09.03.2011. It is to be seen as to whether the petitioners 2 to 8 had any semblance or legal right on the date when the parties entered into a MoU. Even as per covenants contained in the MoU, the petitioners 2 to 8 have stated that they are willing to offer to hand over the acquired land of 70 acres and 52 cents to the first writ petitioner, if the Government passed an order de-notifying the acquired lands. It is to be borne in mind that the request for reconveyance or releasing from the acquisition was rejected on 20.12.2006 and subsequently, on 07.09.2010. Conspicuously, in the MoU, there is no reference to both the orders nor there is any reference to the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and the Review Petition filed by the petitioners 2 to 8 and the order of dismissal passed by this Court, dismissing all the cases.

25. Furthermore, the petitioners 2 to 8 contended that they have created a mortgage on the land with the State Bank of India and it is a registered mortgage. The Housing Board in their counter affidavit would contend that the action of the petitioners 2 to 8 is illegal and amounts to deceiving the Government body, especially when the award was passed way back in 1994. However, in the MoU entered into with the first writ petitioner, there is no reference to the said mortgage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the veracity or validity of the MoU in this writ petition, since the this Court has concluded that the writ petition filed by the petitioners 2 to 8 is absolutely devoid of merits, barred by res judicata and amounts to abuse of process of Court. In the absence of any legal right vested with the first petitioner, the first writ petitioner could not have in the first place joined along with the petitioners 2 to 8 to file this writ petition, as the first petitioner would not have any locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings, more so, when they claimed to have entered into a MoU with the petitioners 2 to 8 and in the said MoU, the petitioners 2 to 8 have stated that they are willing to offer the lands to the first writ petitioner in the event of the Government releasing the lands. This situation appears to be impossible of compliance as already referred to, that is, much prior to the MoU, the prayer for reconveyance/release the acquisition proceedings was rejected by the Government.

26. Hence, for all the above reasons, the writ petition being thoroughly misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed. No costs. pbn Copy to:- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Depart., Chennai ”

009. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme, Unit III, Madurai. 3.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 18.