SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4926 OF 2008

@ S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.2352 of 2007

T.R. Boopalan & Others    ...Appellants

Vs.

Tamil Nadu Housing Board and  others         ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein claim to be the owners

of  a  plot  of  land  measuring  0.81  acres

comprised  in  Survey  No.188/4  in

Thiruvanmiyur  village  falling  under

Chengalpattu District, now part of Mylapore

Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. The said

1

land  which  was  the  subject  matter  of  a

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred

to  as  “the  L.A.Act”,  issued  pursuant  to

G.O.MS  36/Housing,  published  by  the  Tamil

Nadu Government in the Official Gazette on

19.2.1975.    It  is  the  case  of  the

appellants  that  on  28.3.1983  an  Award  was

made in respect of the said lands which  was

registered in the name of the appellants.

3. In 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition

No.16207 of 1991 challenging the acquisition

proceedings  in  respect  of  Survey  No.188/4

measuring  0.81  acres.   According  to  the

appellants, the said writ  petition   was

allowed and the Notification under Section 4

(1)  of the  L.A. Act  in respect  of Survey

No.188/4  of  the  aforesaid  village   was

quashed.  It appears that thereafter it was

discovered  by  the  appellants  that  through

inadvertence the measurement of the land had

2

been  shown  in  the  writ  petition  as  0.81

cents  instead  of  0.81  acres  and  an

application  was  thereupon  made  before  the

High  Court  to  correct  the  mistake  and  to

amend the relief in respect of 0.81 cents to

0.81  acres  since  there  was  no  dispute

regarding  the  same  and  the  correct  figure

had been mentioned both by the Tamil Nadu

Housing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu.

The  said  application  for  amendment  of  the

relief  was  dismissed  on  23.2.1999  by  the

High Court on the ground of laches.  

4. Subsequently,  the appellant applied to the

Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for issuance

of a “No Objection Certificate” in respect

of the lands covered by Survey No.188/4 to

enable the appellants to raise construction

thereupon. It appears from the records that

an inquiry was conducted into the status of

the land and in a report received from the

District  Revenue  Officer,  LA,  Tamil  Nadu

3

Housing Board Schemes, it was revealed that

the  Government  machinery  was  hesitant  to

take  any  further  action  to  question  the

correctness  of  the  judgment  of  the  High

Court  allowing  the  appellants’  writ

petition.  On the basis of the above, the

appellants  appear  to  have  made  an

application to the Tamil Nadu State Housing

Board  for  grant  of  a  “No  Objection

Certificate”  in  respect  of  the  lands

comprised in Survey No.188/4 for the purpose

of raising constructions thereupon.  As the

same  was  rejected,  the  appellants  filed  a

fresh writ petition before the Madras High

Court, being Writ Petition No.272 of 2000,

on  10.1.2000,  for  a  direction  upon  the

authority concerned to issue a “No Objection

Certificate”  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid

land consequent upon the order passed in the

earlier  Writ  Petition.  The  High  Court

directed  the  respondents  to  consider  the

4

representation of the appellants and to pass

orders in accordance with law.

5. The  Respondent  No.1  preferred  an  appeal

against  the  order  of  the  learned  Single

Judge,  which  was  dismissed  on  10th April,

2003, on the ground of delay.  As the matter

was not proceeded with further, the order of

the  learned  Single  Judge  became  final

between the parties.  The appeal filed by

the  Respondent  No.2  was  also  dismissed.

Thereafter, on 13th February, 2004, the Tamil

Nadu State Housing Board offered to give a

“No Objection Certificate” to the appellants

for 0.81 cents only. 6. The  appellants  were  constrained  to  file  a

fresh Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 9488 of

2004,  on  5th April,  2004,  for  a  direction

upon  the Respondent  No. 1  to issue  a “No

Objection Certificate” to the appellants in

respect of the entire 0.81 acres comprising

Survey  No.  188/4  of  Thiruvanmiyur.    The

5

writ  petition  was  allowed  on  16th August,

2004,  to  do  substantial  justice  to  the

appellant  without  being  hindered  by

technicalities. 7. The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board preferred

Writ  Appeal  No.  547  of  2005  against  the

judgment  and  order  of  the  learned  Single

Judge  which  was  allowed  by  the  Division

Bench  on  31st January,  2007,  upon  holding,

inter alia, that the appellants herein were

entitled to relief only to the extent of the

land indicated in the Single Judge’s order

and that equity could not be applied to one

of the parties alone.  The Division Bench

also  held  that  it  could  not  ignore  the

dismissal of the appellants’ application for

amending  the  said  order  which  had  also

attained  finality  as  no  appeal  had  been

preferred against the same.

8. On  behalf  of  the  appellants,  it  was

submitted  by  Mr.  Sundaram,  learned  senior

6

counsel, that the Division Bench of the High

Court  failed  to  consider  the  appellants’

case  in  its  true  perspective  and  allowed

itself  to be  swayed by  the fact  that the

decision  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was

rendered on the basis of a judgment which

had been overruled.  The Division Bench of

the  High  Court  relied  upon  the  principle

that if a judgment is rendered on the basis

of a decision, which had been overruled, any

decision taken on the basis of the overruled

judgment  will  be  void.   Mr.  Sundaram

submitted that the said principle would have

no application to the facts of the present

case  since  the  Division  Bench  had  itself

concluded that the decision in the earlier

case  had  become  final  between  the  parties

since  the  appeal  preferred  therefrom  had

been dismissed.   

9. Mr. Sundaram urged that in the present case,

the only question which requires an answer

7

is whether having regard to the fact that

the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of

Survey  No.  188/4  had  been  quashed  in  the

earlier  proceedings,  the  “No  Objection

Certificate”  asked  for  by  the  appellants

could be confined only to 0.81 cents and not

the  entire  land  comprised  in  Survey

No.188/4. It was submitted that it was the

understood case of all the parties that the

“No  Objection  Certificate”  had  been  asked

for in respect of the entire land comprised

in  Survey  No.  188/4  and  that  the  Writ

Petition was filed for a direction on the

Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for issuance

of such “No Objection Certificate” for the

entire land, though through inadvertence the

area in the Writ Petition was referred to as

0.81 cents in place of 0.81 acres.  It was

submitted  that  the  same  would  be  evident

from  the counter-affidavit filed on behalf

of the Housing Board.

8

10. Mr.  Sundaram  referred  to  a  copy  of  Tamil

Nadu  Government  Gazette  dated  26th March,

1975  containing  details  of  the  lands

acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu

Housing  Board,  which  includes  Survey  No.

188/4  showing  the  extent  of  the  area

comprised in the said Survey as 0.81 acres.

11. In  addition  to  his  aforesaid  submissions,

Mr. Sundaram also pointed out that in the

earlier  writ  petition  filed  by  the

appellants,  the  learned  Single  Judge  had

quashed the Notification under Section 4(1)

of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  in  its

application  to  Survey  No.  188/4  in  its

entirety.  Once the entire land comprised in

Survey  No.  188/4  stood  released  from  the

acquisition proceedings, the appellants were

free  to  apply  for  a  “No  Objection

Certificate” to the Respondent No.1 for the

entire lands and the respondent No.1 was not

entitled to confine the grant of such “No

9

Objection  Certificate”  only  to  the  area

mentioned in the Writ Petition.

12. It was submitted that the Division Bench of

the  High  Court  erred  in  reversing  the

Judgment of the Learned Single Judge which

had taken a realistic view of the matter in

order to do justice between the parties.

13. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Housing

Board,  Mr.  Krishna  Murthy,  learned  senior

advocate,  attempted  to  justify  the  view

taken  by  the  Division  Bench  upon  holding

that the prayer made in the Writ Petition by

the appellants herein had been granted and

they  could  therefore  have  no  grievance  on

such score.  In fact, the Tamil Nadu State

Housing  Board  had  offered  and  was  always

willing  to  grant  the  “No  Objection

Certificate”  in  respect  of  0.81  cents  of

land  in  respect  of  which  the  petitioner’s

Writ Petition had been allowed.  

10

14. Mr. Krishna Murthy reiterated the reasoning

of the High Court indicating that what is

sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

He  urged  that  while  after  the  appeal

preferred  by  the  Respondents  against  the

order of the learned Single Judge quashing

the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of

Survey No. 188/4 was dismissed on the ground

of delay, no further steps were taken in the

matter,  similarly,  when  the  appellant’s

application  for  correction  of  the  area  of

land  mentioned  in  the  Writ  Petition  was

rejected, no further steps were also taken

by  the  appellants  against  the  said  order.

In  other  words,  as  in  the  case  of  the

Respondents  so  also  in  the  case  of  the

appellants, the order of the learned Single

Judge  rejecting  the  application  for

correction of the area of land in the Writ

Petition  had  also  become  final  and  the

appellant  was,  therefore,  disentitled  from

11

asking for the same relief in a round about

manner.   Mr.  Krishna  Murthy  conceded  that

the  land  comprised  in  Survey  No.  188/4

measured 0.81 acres, but according to him,

without  proper  evidence,  it  could  not  be

taken for granted that the appellants were

the only persons entitled to the entire land

comprised in Survey No. 188/4.  It was urged

that in such a scenario, the Division Bench

had quite rightly set aside the order of the

learned  Single  Judge  for  the  aforesaid

reasons.

15. Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the

respective parties, we are unable to agree

with the reasoning of the Division Bench of

the High court in allowing the Writ Petition

filed by the Respondent No.1 herein.

16. There is no dispute with regard to the fact

that the land comprised in Survey No. 188/4

measures  0.81  acres.   There  is  also  no

dispute that in deciding the Writ Petition

12

filed  by  the  appellants  challenging  the

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of Survey

No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said

notification was quashed.

17. It  is  in  the  said  circumstances  that  the

appellants’  prayer  for  grant  of  “No

Objection Certificate” was considered by the

learned  Single  Judge  in  the  Writ  Petition

filed by the appellants herein.  When the

parties are agreed upon the basic fact that

the  Notification  in  respect  of  the  entire

Survey No.188/4 was quashed, there could be

no  justification  in  taking  a  technical

objection  that  since  the  Writ  Petition

mentioned  the  relief  sought  by  the  writ

petitioners/appellants  to be in respect of

0.81 cents, the appellants must be held to

such  prayer,  even  if  apparently  a  mistake

had been committed.  While a comparison had

been  drawn  between  the  failure  of  the

13

respondents to take further steps in respect

of  the  Order  passed  by  the  High  Court

quashing  the  Section  4(1)  Notification  in

respect of Survey No. 188/4 and the failure

of the appellants to take further steps on

the  dismissal  of  their  application  for

correction of the relief prayed for in the

Writ Petition by amending the area mentioned

in the Writ Petition for which relief has

been sought, in our view, such a comparison

is  not  well-founded.   While  in  the  first

matter,  a  decision  of  a  Single  Judge  on

merits  was  being  questioned  in  appeal,  in

the second matter, there was no challenge to

the merits of the decision of the learned

Single  Judge  but  an  application  had  been

made merely for correction of an error in

the Writ Petition itself with regard to the

area for which relief was sought.

14

1. In our view, the two above-mentioned cases

stand  on  different  footings  and  cannot  be

compared.   Furthermore,  there  is  force  in

Mr. Sundaram’s other limb of submission that

when the Notification under Section 4(1) of

the  L. A.  Act, with  regard to  Survey No.

188/4  had  been  quashed  in  respect  of  the

entire  lands  comprising  0.81  acres,  there

was  no  reason  for  the  respondent  No.1  to

limit  the  grant  of  “No  Objection

Certificate” only to the area mentioned in

the Writ Petition.  Since the entire lands

stood  released  from  the  acquisition

proceedings,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the

appellants  were  entitled  to  apply  for  “No

Objection  Certificate”  in  respect  of  same

but  the  Respondent  No.1,  for  reasons  best

known to it, chose to confine itself only to

the  area  of  land  mentioned  in  the  Writ

Petition, which according to us was clearly

an unintended error.    

15

1. In  such  circumstances,  we  are  unable  to

sustain the decision of the Division Bench,

which is set aside.  We, therefore, restore

the decision of the learned Single Judge by

which the Writ Petition was allowed.

16

1. The present appeal is, accordingly allowed,

but there will be no order as to costs.

...................J (ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................J (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated: August 7, 2008

17