Holding

The notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is valid, the government may withdraw earlier exemption guidelines, but a reasonable portion of land (1 acre 50 cents) may be excluded for the respondents' personal residential purposes.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu against a Madras High Court order that had quashed a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that it was vague because the development scheme was not fully formulated. The Court held that a scheme need not be completely detailed before issuing a Section 4(1) notification and that the earlier administrative guidelines for land exclusion could be withdrawn without invalidating the acquisition. While upholding the validity of the notification and the award, the Court allowed a limited exclusion of 1 acre 50 cents of land for the personal residential use of the 19 families of the respondents. It directed that a withdrawal notification under Section 48(1) be issued within three months. The High Court order was set aside and the appeal was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid for being vague when the development scheme is not fully formulated.
Whether earlier government guidelines granting exemption from acquisition can be withdrawn and affect the rights of claimants.
Whether land acquired for a public purpose can be partially excluded for the personal residential use of the owners.
Effect of withdrawal of earlier notifications on the validity of the award and possession.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 12, s. 4(1), s. 48(1), s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 4(1) notificationVaguenessPublic purposeExclusion of landResidential purposeSection 48(1)CompensationPlanned developmentHousing scarcity

Judgment

(
A STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
v. I
L. KRISHNAN AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Sections 4(1), 6, 11, 12, 48(1Hand acquired for public pur-
C pose-Planned developmel!t of the city for residential purpose• to relieve
housing scarcity-Pait of lands withdrawn for pwposes of outstation bus
stand and wholesale fniit market-Also being for public pwpose, the
withdrawal will not have any effect on the notification issued under
S.4(1)-No infinnity in the notifications issued under Ss.4(1) and 6-How-
eve1; 1 acre and 50 cents to be excluded for the purpose of const1t1ctio11 of
D residential houses for the members of the claimant family and ihe withdrawal
notification under S.48(1) to· be· issued within three ntonths.

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yousef & Ors., (1991]
4 SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. 10islman & Ors. Etc., JT (1995)
E. 8 SC 1 and State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. v.V. Mahalakshmi Ammal &
Ors., (C.A. 11555 of 1995), relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1867 of
1992.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.91 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983.

A. Mariarputham for Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the Appellants.

A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent No. 1.
G
Shankar Ghosh and M.N. Krishnamani Prabir Choudhury and
Sudarsh Menon for the Respondent Nos. 3-4.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent No. 6.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :
708
STATE v. L. KRISHNAN 709

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division A
' Bench of the Madras High Court made in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 on April
22, 1991. Notification under Section 4(1) of lhe Land Acquisition Act (Act
1of1894) (for short, 'lhe Act') was published on August 29, 1975 acquiring
large extent of land for planned development of K.K. Nagar in Madras
City. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on Septem-
B
ber 28, 1978. The award under Section 11 of the Act was made in February,
> 1983. The writ petition was filed on July 28, 1983 questioning the notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that the notification was
vague and invalid since the Government had not formulated specific
scheme for construction of the houses. That contention found favour with
the High Court and consequently it quashed the notification in the first c
instance, which order was upheld by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu &
A1tr. v.A. Mohammed Yousef & Ors., [1991) 4 SCC 224. Following the said
decision, this writ petition along with other writ petitions was allowed by
the Division Bench. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. Krish1ta1t
& 01'. Etc., JT (1995) 8 SC 1 had held that the scheme as envisaged under D
• the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act was not required to be completely
formulated before publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act. The notification on that account, therefore, was not vague. Same
contention has been raised in this appeal; but specific argument was made
at the time that there is distinguishing feature on factual background and
that, therefore, it was required to be separately dealt with. Accordingly, E
this appeal was separated. Thus, we are hearing this appeal independently.

' Shri A. Mariarputham, learned counsel for the appellants, contended
that the respondents had laid their claim on the basis that the sanction for
layout from the Director, Town Planning was obtained as early as in 1970 F
and the notifications were issued by the Government from time to time
excluding such lands and on that premise the respondents claimed ex-
clusion. But the Government after elaborate consideration in G.O.Ms. No.
583 dated March 11, 1983 had withdrawn the earlier notifications and
several writ petitions were filed after that order was passed. The foundation G
on the basis of which the writ petition was filed was knocked of its bottom.
The High Court was not, therefore, right in granting the relief to the
respondents. Dr. Shankar Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the respon-
dents, contended that since the notifications had been quashed in respect
of some other lands covered in the same notifications, the respondents
stand on the same position as others and are entitled to the same benefit. H
(
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Though we had adjourned the appeal to get particulars relating to the cases
in which exclusion of the lands covered in the same notification and for
what grounds was made, Mr. Mariarputham stated that in spite of his best
efforts to get the correct information, he was unable to get the information
from the Government and that, therefore, he is not in a position to place
any factual material on the basis of which the lands were withdrawn either
B by the orders of the Court and for what purpose. Reasons for such
omission are not far to seek. •,

However, he has pointed out that the earlier orders by the Court
relate to the lands for the establishment of out-station bus stand and also
C wholesale fruit market. Since they also serve public purpose, the
withdrawal of the notifications in respect thereof does not have any effect
on the planned development under the scheme. Therefore, it cannot be
said that there is any invalidity in the notification for being quashed. We
find force in the contention. Dr. Ghosh submitted that though the respon-
D dents are two families, the numbers are as many as 19 and they require •
construction of houses for self-occupation. The scheme being for the
planned development of a residential township and since the land acquired
by them is for that purpose, the land required by them may also be
considered for exclusion for the conf_truction of their own houses for
residential purpose. The extent of land in question in this appeal is 20 acres
E and odd.

The question is: whether the view of the High Court is correct in
law? The question of vagueness of the notification published under Section '
4(1) is no longer res integra. The ratio in L. !0ishnan's case (supra) covers
F the field. In State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. v. V Mahalakshmi Ammal &
Ors., C.A. 11555 of 1995, this Court has considered the effect of G.O.Ms.
No. 583 dated March 11, 1983 wherein guidelines issued for exemption
were withdrawn. It was held that though the Government had issued
notifications on earlier occasions giving benefit for exclusion of certain
lands covered under the guidelines formulated therein, in view of large-
G scale misapplication of I he guidelines for seeking exclusion of the lands
covered under the scheme, the schemes arc getting frustrated. Consequent-
ly, Government was justified in withdrawing the guidelines issued earlier.
The view of the High Court that they are statutory notifications and confer
right to get exemption from acquisition as per guidelines mentioned there-
H in, is not correct. They are only administrative instructions issued by the
STATE v. L. KRISHNAN 711

-~ Government for the purpose of consideration by the Housing Board but A
these guidelines being misused and misapplied, the Government, when it
had power to issue guidelines, has same plenary power to withdraw the
same. It is seen that the writ petition came to be filed not only after the
concerned G.O.Ms. was withdrawn but also after the award came to be
passed. After taking possession, all acquisition proceedings \vould become
B
final except determination of compensation at different stages. Consequent
to passing of the award, the State Government is entitled to take possession
of the lands and after issuance of the notices under Section 12 of the Act,
the lands stand vested in the State under Section 16 free from all en-
cumbrances. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the notifications
issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act and the award made by the C
Land Acquisition Officer.

It is seen that the very public purpose envisaged under the scheme
~ is planned development of the city for residential purposes lo relieve
,, housing scarcity. Though a part of the lands was withdrawn for the pur- D
poses of establishing out.station bus ~land and also wholesale fruit market,
they being equally for other public purposes, the withdrawal of acquisition
for those purposes will not have any effect on the notification issued under
Section 4(1). But the respondents being the owners of the lands and the
scheme being for the planned development for residential purpose, they
too required the lands for construction of their own houses for their E
,. personal residence.

Under these circumstances, we think that while upholding the action
of the state in acquiring the lands for planned development of the city,
reasonable land may also be excluded for the actual personal residential F
purpose of the respondents who are 19 in number. In view of the large
numbers of families, we think that 1 acre 50 cents of the land would be
reasonable for the members of the families of the respondents to construct
their own houses for personal occupation. On our direction, Mr. M.N.
Krishnamani, with the assistance of the local counsel, identified north-east G
corner of the land in Survey No. 167/lB abutting the Punamally Highway
road. The total extent of the land under Survey No. 167/lB is 7 acres 81
cents. Out of which 1 acre 50 cents in a contiguous place towards north-
easl is directed to be released from the acquisition so that the respondents
would be able to construct their own residential houses for their personal
residence in a compact block. H
f
<

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A The order of lhe High Court is set aside and the notification stands
upheld except to the above e'tent. The notification of withdrawal in respect
of excluded land be issued under Section 48(1) within three months from
the dale of receipt of the order. This order of exclusion is not to be treated
as a precedent. Only as a special case, in view of the special fact that large
nun1ber of persons iri t\VO families require personal accommodation, we
B have given the above directions - that too on an undertaking that the
respondents would use the same only for the personal residence. •
The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

G.N. Appeal disposed of.