C. PADMA AND ORS.versusTHE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

A                            C. PADMA AND ORS.
                                         v.
                 THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
                        TAMIL NADU AND ORS.                                        •
                              NOVEMBER 22, 1996
B
               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

C          S. 4( I), 6-Acquisition of land for setting up industo-f'roceedings
    became final--Compensation paid to land owne,-.Later the acquired land
    given by Government to another subsidiary company on leasehold basis--Ac-
    quisition challenged on the ground that public purpose for which acquisition
    was made ceased to exit-Held, in tem1s of the agreement, land came to be
    suTTendered to the Government for resumptir.m-Then the lands were allotted
D   to another subsidiary amalgamated company of the original company-There-
    fore public purpose for which acquisition was made was substituted for
    another public purpose.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15526 of
E 1996.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.93. of the Madras High
    Court in W.A. No. 712 of 1993.

          G. Ramaswamy, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellants.
F
          Ramasubramaniam, E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh and V. Krishnamurthy
    for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G         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, mac!e on June 29, 1993 in W.A. No.
H   712193.
                                        158
                    C.P.(\DMAv. DY.SECY. TOTHEGOVf.OF T.N.                  159

            The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published A
      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 Chemical India ltd., B
      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 ownersliip, C
      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 for 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 D
      agreement in G.O.M.S. No. 439 Industries dated May 10, 1985. In
      G.0.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 original
      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. E
      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.                                                  F

              Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
       lant, 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 G
       October 17, 1%2 was published, the acquisition proceeding had become
       final, the compensation was paid to the appellant's father and thereafter
       the lands stood vested in the State. In terms of the agreement as con-
       templated 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 H
    160                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A 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
B   purpose for which acquisition was made was substituted for another public
    purpose. Moreover, the question stood finally 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.

C          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.

    R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.