No 'Public Purpose' For Veda Nilayam Acquisition And Conversion To Memorial: Madras High Court Dismisses AIADMK Plea

In third party appeals against the single judge order quashing land acquisition proceedings of 'Veda Nilayam', Madras High Court held that no 'public purpose' is served by converting the erstwhile residence of Late J. Jayalalitaa into a second memorial. While dismissing the appeals preferred by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (AIADMK) and former AIADMK Minister C.Ve Shanmugam, Madras High Court has also held that AIADMK wrongfully equated itself with the appropriate government in acquisition proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup held that the state's land acquisition proceedings were riddled with procedural irregularities, concurring with the findings of the single judge bench setting aside the acquisition. The court answered three questions framed by the bench itself while dismissing the appeal and closing the civil miscellaneous petition. These questions were: Whether the single judge bench was correct in holding that the acquisition proceedings were illegal under the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) and related RulesWhether public purpose is served under Section 3 (za) r/w Section 2 (1) of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) and related Rules by converting the residence into a memorial for late J. Jayalalithaa, and if the answer is yes,Whether the 'appropriate Government' under the Act of 2013 can still be directed to continue with the said acquisition proceeding, by initiating and completing that exercise afresh, in due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the ActThe court has comprehensively answered the above questions. On the first issue, the court held that the appellants have failed in raising any substantial challenge against the inferences made by the single judge bench about procedural irregularities. Though the acquisition was of a private residential property, the state didn't even consider the status of writ petitioners as owners of the property. However, since the acquisition and not the ownership is in question before the current bench, the court answered that the procedural irregularities explained by the single judge bench with regards to the 2013 Act and Rules will hold true. On the second question, reference was made to the scope and ambit of 'Public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vis-à-vis the 2013 RFCTLARR Act. The expression 'Public Purpose' in the 1894 Act was accorded a wide interpretation which was redefined in the 2013 Act to restrict the scope for acquisition of land by state for infrastructural projects and general public, the court underscored. Referring to Section 3(za) of the RFCTLARR Act, the court added that the object that is sought to be achieved must be ascertained by reading the former conjointly with Section 2(1) of the Act. "On conjoint consideration of the above, what transpires is that, the legislature had thought it proper not to have that wide a definition of the word 'public purpose' as it stood in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for various reasons and therefore in the RFCTLARR Act of 2013 it is narrowed down and made precise, what 'public purpose' would mean. If the acquisition in question is examined, keeping in view the 'objects and reasons' and the definition of the 'public purpose' in the Act of 2013, in the facts of this case, we are unable to bring the acquisition of the property in question within four corners of 'public purpose' envisaged under Section 3 (za) of the Act of 2013 read with any of the clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act". Since the court had already held that there is no public purpose in the acquisition and conversion of Veda Nilayam to a memorial, the issue of whether the government could proceed with the acquisition proceedings afresh once again was rendered irrelevant. However, the court went on to note that the court had previously posed a question as to why neither of the appellants approached the single judge bench who was considering the matter earlier. The court noted that AIADMK answered the above question by taking the stand that there arose no occasion for AIADMK to approach the court since the previous government was satisfactorily pursuing the matter back then. The stand taken by AIADMK indicates that the political party misconstrued itself as the relevant/ appropriate government under Section 3(e) (i) of RFCTLARR Act, the court observed. It also added that AIADMK attempted to reduce its status to that of a requiring body under Section 3(zb) of the Act which was outside the scope of the said Act. The court concluded that the government of AIADMK exercised its powers under the Act by equating itself with the political party in power."...the first ...

No 'Public Purpose' For Veda Nilayam Acquisition And Conversion To Memorial: Madras High Court Dismisses AIADMK Plea

Sebin James

Tags