Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Allotment of alternate housing site to the displaced persons – Property owned and possessed by the private respondents were acquired for the purpose of implementing ‘Mass Rapid Transport System’ (MRTS) Railway project, under the provision of the Act, 1894 – Writ petitions – High Court while rejecting the challenge to acquisition proceedings observed that the appropriate authority of the State Government to consider the representation made by private respondents for allotment of a housing site by way of rehabilitation – Pursuant thereto, representation was made before the State Government, however, relief claimed was declined – Writ petition against the said order of the State Government – High Court held that petitioners were entitled to alternate site under special category of displaced persons due to the acquisition of their lands for Railways – On appeal, held: The acquisition in the present case was not for the purpose of development of urban area or for providing a housing scheme to the residents of the urban area in which the acquired lands were situated – The acquisition was for a project of MRTS (Railways) on behalf of the Ministry of Railway, Government of India and not for the State Government or State Authority – Admittedly, no scheme was formulated in relation to the stated railway project implemented by the Central Government for providing alternative housing sites to Project affected persons – In the absence of such a scheme, the direction of High Court to provide alternative housing sites cannot be countenanced in law – Further, private respondents were duly compensated in conformity with the mandate of Act, 1894 – Thus, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The acquisition in the present case is certainly not for the purpose of development of urban area or for providing a housing scheme to the residents of the urban area in which the acquired lands are situated. The acquisition, is for a project of MRTS (Railways) on behalf of the Ministry of Railway, Government of India and not for the State Government or State Authority. Furthermore, admittedly, no scheme has been formulated in relation to the stated railway project implemented by the Central Government for providing alternative housing sites to project affected persons. In the absence of such a scheme, it is unfathomable that the High Court could still issue a direction to the State Government and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to provide alternative land to the private respondent(s) as a special category of displaced persons. Such a direction cannot be countenanced in law. This is reinforced from the principle underlying the dictum in the case of New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. In the said decision, the Court noted that it would be a different matter if the State had come forward with a proposal to provide an alternative site but that principle cannot be extended as a condition in all cases of acquisition of the land that the owner must be given an alternative site or flat. The Court unambiguously rejected the contention of the affected persons that acquisition of their land without providing them an alternative site would impinge upon their right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 9] [895-F-H; 896-A-C]
2. Again, in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr., the Court negatived the claim of the land owners that the unused acquired land for construction of national highway should be returned to them. Instead, the Court held that since the acquisition had been completed and the land had vested in the State Government, the unutilised acquired land could be disposed of only through public auction so that the public would benefit by getting a higher value. In another case, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. L. Chandrasekaran (dead) by Lrs. And Ors., the Court restated the doctrine of public trust disabling the State from giving back the property for a consideration less than the market value, if it could not be used for any other public purpose by the State in cases where the acquisition process had been completed under the 1894 Act. [Para 10] [896-D-F]
3. The private respondents, however, would urge that the State Government had initiated the acquisition proceedings and was intently concerned with the stated project within the State and, for which reason, it could not be extricated from its obligation flowing from the existing State policy at the relevant time enabling the State Government to exercise discretionary quota. The private respondent(s) have relied on instances where such allotments have been made, as is evident from the communications annexed at R4, R5 and R6 to the additional affidavit filed on 15th April, 2019, as per the liberty granted by this Court. [Para 11] [897-C]
4. On perusal of the said communications. It is evident that, in these cases, the acquisition was made for construction of houses under LIG/MIG scheme in respect of which a policy existed for grant of alternative housing site to the affected persons. Those schemes were implemented by the State Housing Board. These instances will be of no avail to the private respondents whose lands have been acquired for implementation of MRTS Project implemented by the Government of India (Railways). The private respondent(s) have been duly compensated in conformity with the mandate of the Act of 1894. Therefore, they cannot expect any further relief much less from the State Government or, for that matter, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. [Para 12] [897-D-F]
New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 731 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 169 ; State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr. (1997) 5 SCC 432 : [1997]
1 Suppl. SCR 87 ; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran (dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (2010) 2 SCC
786 ; V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603 – relied on.
Bharat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 534 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 1050 – held inapplicable.
Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra and ors. (1993)
3 SCC 634 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 216 ; State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 251 : [1986] 3 SCR 743 ; S.B. Kishore v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC
90 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.