TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. D. SUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The erstwhile landowner challenged the land acquisition in W.P.No.15410 of 1993. The order quashing the acquisition was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.485 of 2001. The landowner filed S.L.P.(C) No.5372 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 March 2011. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25961 of 2011 for re-conveyance of land. The writ petition was dismissed. The landowner transferred the land to his wife, who in turn initiated proceedings afresh for re-conveyance originally and for a declaration of statutory lapse under Section 24(2) of the New Act, later. The issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through LRS. and ors., (judgment dated 8 February 2018, in Civil Appeal No.20982/2017) .

(2.) The 1st respondent, who is a subsequent purchaser, has filed the writ petition stating that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey Nos.337/1, 337/2B, 337/3, 337/4b 337/7A1, 337/7A2, 337/7B, 337/7C, 337/7B, 337/B1, 337/B2, 337/7B5, 337/6, 337/8, 337/8B, 340, 341, 343/8A2, 343/8A, 343/8B, 334/2, 344, 345/3, 345/3A, 337/2B2, 325/2 and 337/5B, 344/3, 344/5, 344/5, 402 in Sholinghanallur Village, Kanchipuram District to an extent of 5 acres 71 cents. The said property originally belonged to various owners. The original owners executed a power of attorney in favour of her husband, one Duraisingam. The said Duraisingam was in possession and enjoyment of the property continuously without any interference. In the meanwhile, the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein initiated the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, Phase III.

(3.) The 1st respondent's husband challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.15410 of 1993. The writ petition was allowed on 31.01.2000 against which writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.485 of 2001. During the pendency of the writ appeal, her husband sold the property under document No.7666 of 2006 to 7674 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Neelankarai to the first respondent. From the date of sale deed, the 1st respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the property continuously without any interference. The W.A.No.485 of 2001 was allowed in the year 2008 against which the husband of the 1st respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2008. Initially the S.L.P. was admitted and a stay was granted. Subsequently, in the year 2011 the appeal was dismissed. Even after that the 1st respondent continued to possess the land.