Holding

Since the Section 4(1) notification was quashed for the entire 0.81‑acre plot, the appellants are entitled to a No Objection Certificate for the whole land, and the technical mistake in the writ petition cannot curtail that relief.

Summary

The appellants owned a 0.81‑acre plot covered by Survey No.188/4 that was subject to a Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A writ petition quashed the notification, but the petition mistakenly referred to the land as 0.81 cents; an application to correct this error was dismissed. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board later refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the whole plot, offering it only for 0.81 cents. The Supreme Court held that, since the notification was quashed for the entire 0.81 acres, the technical mistake could not limit the relief and the appellants were entitled to an NOC for the whole land. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench decision, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a technical error in the description of land area in a writ petition can restrict the scope of relief after the underlying acquisition notification is quashed.
Whether the dismissal of an application to amend the writ petition precludes the appellant from obtaining relief for the correct land area.
Whether the authority may limit the No Objection Certificate to the mistakenly stated area despite the quashing of the acquisition notification for the entire land.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1)

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 4 notificationNo Objection CertificateTechnical errorWrit petitionRelief amendmentEquity

Judgment

[2008] 11S.C.R.1016
i"

A T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS.
v.
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. f
(Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2008)
AUGUST 7, 2008
B ~

[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition proceed-
ings - Quashing of s. 4 Notification by High Court - Effect of - (
c Appellants-land owners discovered later that in writ petition
area of land owned by them was wrongly mentioned - Appli-
J-
cation for amendment, dismissed - Appellants seeking 'No
I
Objection Certificate' for construction on portion owned by them ~

- Authorities refusing to grant on ground that appellants en- '
I-
titled to relief only to the extent of land indicated in High Court's
D
order- Held: Not justified-Authorities wrongly confined 'NOC'
·~
to the area of land mentioned in the writ petition - Since the
entire lands stood released from the acquisition proceedings,
appellants were entitled to grant of 'NOC' for land owned by
them - Judgment/Order - Correction of typographical error
E owing to error in pleading. ~
~
I
Appellants were owners of plot of land in Survey
No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres, which was subject to ac-
quisition proceedings. Appellants filed writ petition chal- r
F lenging the acquisition proceedings which was allowed.
-(
Thereafter appellants discovered that by way of inadvert-
ence, the measurement of land was shown in writ peti-
tion as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and moved an
application for correcting the mistake. The said applica-
-~
tion was dismissed by the High Court.
G
Appellants made an application to the Housing Board I-
for grant of a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the ¥
lands comprised in Survey No.188/4 for raising construe- r-
tions thereupon. It was rejected. The appellants filed a . \

H 1016
TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU 1017
HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

fresh wrjt petition before .the High Court, for a direction to A
the authority concerned to issue a "No Objection Certifi-
cate" in respect of the aforesaid land consequent upon.
the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition. The High C~urt
directed the respondents to consider the representation
of the appellants. s
The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was
dismissed. As the matter was not proceeded any further,
the order of High Court became fim· l between the p(lrties.
Thereafter, Housing Board offered to give a "No Obje~
tion Certificate" to the appellants for 0.81 cents only. c
The appellants filed a fresh Writ Petition, for a direc-
tion 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, which was allowed.
D
The Housing Board filed appeal, which was allowed
by the Division -Bench of High Court holding, that the ap-
pellants were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land
indicated in the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench
also held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the ap- E
pellants' application for amending the said order which
had also attained finality as no appeal had been preferred
against the same. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. 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 filed by the appellants challenging the Notifica-
tion under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in re- G
spect of Survey No. 188/4, comprising 0.81 acres, the said
notification was quashed. When the parties are not dis~
puting 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 . H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
1"
A the Writ Petition mentioned the relief sought by the writ I
petitioners/appellants to be in respect of 0.81 cents, the ap- t-
pellants must be held to such prayer, even if apparently a r
mistake had been committed. [Paras 16, 17] [1023 D,E,F,G]
2. When the Notification under s.4(1) of the L. A. Act,
'
B with regard to Survey No. 188/4 had been quashed in re- -t-
spect of the entire lands comprising 0.81 acres, there was
no reason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of r
I
"No Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in
the Writ Petition. Since the entire lands stood released tr
c from the acquisition proceedings, the appellants were I

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 was clearly an unin- ~

D tended error. [Para 18] [1024 C,D,E]
11
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppea! No. 4926 ~ \.

of 2008
l
From the final Judgment dated 31.1.2007 of the High Court
E of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 547 of 2005 and
W.A.M.P. No. 1019 of 2005 .__
C.A. Sundaram, Rajiv Dutta, S. Ramesh, R. Venkataraman,
Rohi))(f\,1usa, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Zafar lnayat, Abhishek
Gupta, A.V. Arun and K. Uma Shankar for the Appellants. t=,_
F
V. Krishna Murthy A.K. Ganguli, T. Harish Kumar for the
Respondents. ' '
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
2. The appellants herein claim to be the owners of a plot of
F
r
land measuring 0.81 acres comprised in Survey No.188/4 in '.K
Thiruvanmiyur village falling under Chengalpattu District, now
part of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. The said t··
H land which was the subject matter of a Notification under Sec-
TR. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU 1019
HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

tion 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred A
to as "the LA.Act", issued pursuant to G.O.MS 36/Housing, pub-
lished 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 regis-
tered in the name of the appellants. B
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 ap-
pellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification
under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No.188/ C
4 of the aforesaid village was quashed. It appears that thereaf-
ter it was discovered by the appellants that through inadvert-
ence the measurement of the land had 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 mis- D
take 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 Hous-
ing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu. The said application for
amendment of the relief was dismissed on 23.2.1999 by the E
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 Certifi-
cate" in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.188/4 to
enable the appellants to raise construction thereupon. It appears F
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 Housing Board Schemes, it was re-
vealed that the Government machinery was hesitant to take any
further action to question the correctness of the judgment of the G
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 Ob-
jection Certificate" in respect of the lands comprised in Survey
No.188/4 for the purpose of raising constructions thereupon. H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A As the same was rejected, the appellants filed a fresh writ peti-
tion before the Madras High Court, being Writ Petition No.272
of 2000, on 10.1.2000, for a direction upon the authority con-
cerned to issue a "No Objection Certificate" in respect of the
aforesaid land consequent upon the order passed in the earlier
..
B Writ Petition. The High Court directed the respondents to con-
sider the 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 1Oth
C April, 2003, on the ground of delay. As the matter was. not pro-
ceeded with furth~r. the order of the learned Single Judge be-
came final between the parties. The appeal filed by the Respon-
dent No.2 was also dismissed. Thereafter, on 13th February,
2004, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board offered to give a I-
D "No Objection Certificate" to the appellants for. 0.81 cents c:t.-4·:y~
6. The appellants were constrained to file a fresh Writ Pe-
tition, 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 0.8f acres
E comprising SuNey No. 18J3/4 ofThiruvanmiyur. The writ petition
was allowed on 16th August, 2004, to do substantial justice to
the appellant without being hindered by techn,icalities.
7. The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board preferred Writ
I-
F Appeal No. 547 of 2005 against the judgment and order of the
--teatned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench
·(;n 31st January, 2007, upon holding, inter alia, that the appel-
t
lants hereii;i were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land
indicated in the Single Judge's order and that equity could not
G be.applied to one of the parties alone. The Division Bench also
held that it could not ignore the dismissal of the appellants' ap-
plication 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.
H Sundaram, learned senior counsel, that the Division Bench of
T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU 1021
""'(' HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

the High Court failed to consider the appellants' case in its true A
perspective and allowed itself to be swayed by the fact that the
decision of the learned Single Judge was rendered on the ba-
sis 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, B
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.
c
9. Mr. Sundaram urged that in the present case, the only
question which requires an answer 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 D
"No Objection Certificate" asked for by the a_ppellants 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 Sur- E
vey 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 in-
advertence 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 F
would be evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
Housing Board.

10. Mr. Sundaram referred to a copy of Tamil Nadu Gov-
ernment Gazette dated 261h March, 1975 containing details of
the lands acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Housing G
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 ap-
H

r
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A pellants, the learned Single Judge had quashed the Notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in its a pp Ii-
cation to Survey No. 188/4 in its entirety. Once the entire land
comprised in Survey No. 188/4 stood released from the acqui-
sition proceedings, the appellants were free to apply for a "No
B 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 Objection Certificate" only to the area mentioned in
the Writ Petition.

12. It was submitted that the Division Bench of the High
c Court erred in reversing the Judgment of the Learned Single
Judge which had ta.ken 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
D
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
E respect of 0.81 cents of land in respect of which the petitioner's
t
Writ Petition had been allowed.
14. Mr. Krishna Murthy reiterated the reasoning of the High
Court indicating that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for ~

F the gander. He urged that while after the appeal preferred by 4
t
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 appli-
cation for correction of the area of land mentioned in the Writ
G
Petition was rejecfed, 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 be-
H
T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. v. TAMIL NADU 1023
'(' HOUSING BOARD & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

come final and the appellant was, therefore, disentitled from A
asking for the same relief in a round about manner. Mr. Krishna
Murthy conceded that the land comprised in SuNey No. 188/4
measured 0.81 acres, but according to him, withoufproper evi-
dence, it could not be taken for granted that the appellants were
the only persons entitled to the entire land comprised in SuNey B
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 par-
ties, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division c
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 SuNey No. 188/4 measures 0.81 acres. There is
D
also no dispute that in deciding the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of SuNey No. 188/4,
comprising 0.81 acres, the said notification was quashed.
17. It is in the said circumstances that the appellants' prayer E
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 SuNey No.188/4 was
quashed, there could be no justification in taking a technical F
) 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 respondents to take further
G
steps in respect of the Order passed by the High Court quash-
ing the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of Su Ney No. 188/4
and the failure of the appellants to take further steps on the dis-
missal of their application for correction of the relief prayed for
in the Writ Petition by amending the area mentioned in the Writ
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
-..,..
A Petition for which relief has been sought, in our view, such a
comparison is not well-founded. While in the firstmatter, a deci-
sion of a Single Judge on merits was being questioned in ap-
peal, in the second matter, there was no challenge to the merits
of the decision of the learned Single Judge but an application
B had been made merely for correction of an error in the Writ
Petition itself with regard to the area for which relief was sought.
18. 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
c 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 re-
spondent No.1 to limit the grant of "No Objection Certificate"
. only to the area mentioned in the Writ Petition. Since the entire
D lands $tood released fro~ 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
E to us was clearly an unintended error.
19. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the
decision of the Division Bench, which is set ·aside. We, there-
Jore, restore the decision of the learned Single Judge by which
the Writ Petition was allowed. "'
F
20. The present appeal is, accordingly allowed, but there ~

will be no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal allowed.