Land Resumption for Public Purpose: Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Government’s Decision

The case of V. Krishnamurthy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. revolves around a land resumption dispute in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated March 26, 2019, upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu government to resume land allotted to the Agricultural Horticultural Society. The Court ruled that the state had legally exercised its right under the terms of allotment, dismissing allegations of mala fide intentions.

This judgment is significant as it reaffirms the state’s authority to resume land for public purposes and clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.

Case Background

The dispute involved land allotted to the Agricultural Horticultural Society, a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The land was allotted by the Tamil Nadu government on certain terms and conditions through an agreement dated April 28, 1980.

On August 5, 1989, the Tamil Nadu government passed an order (GO Ms. No. 1259) resuming the land, citing the need for public use—specifically, the development of sports facilities while preserving horticulture and environmental conservation.

The society challenged the resumption order in the Madras High Court through writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 11058 & 11059 of 1989), arguing that the decision was politically motivated and constituted mala fide action. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the society and quashed the resumption order on June 19, 1998.

The Tamil Nadu government appealed to a Division Bench, which set aside the Single Judge’s order and upheld the resumption order. The society then approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde, contended:

• The resumption order was politically motivated and based on mala fide intentions, as the society members were affiliated with the opposition party.
• The society had adhered to all terms of the allotment agreement and had not violated any conditions warranting resumption.
• The High Court’s Single Judge correctly held that the resumption was invalid, and the Division Bench erred in reversing this finding.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Advocate Balaji Srinivasa, countered:

• The land belonged to the state, and Clause 4 of the allotment order clearly allowed resumption for public purposes.
• The resumption was based on legitimate grounds—developing sports facilities without affecting horticulture and environmental conservation.
• The allegations of mala fide action were baseless, as no concrete evidence supported this claim.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tamil Nadu government, dismissing the appeal. The Court made the following key observations:

“The land in question belongs to the state. Clause 4 of the allotment order empowers the state to resume the land either upon violation of terms by the appellant or for a public purpose.”

On the issue of mala fide allegations, the Court found no merit:

“The plea of mala fides lacks factual and legal foundation. The appellants’ argument that the action was politically motivated is based on mere averments without substantial material in support.”

The Court upheld the Division Bench’s ruling and confirmed the resumption order:

“Having failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the resumption order, the appellants cannot claim continued occupation of state land.”

The Supreme Court also directed the Tamil Nadu government to ensure that the land is used strictly for the intended public purpose:

“The state must ensure that the land is used for the development of sports facilities and environmental conservation as per the resumption order.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that state authorities have the right to resume land for public purposes when explicitly allowed under an allotment agreement. The key takeaways from this ruling include:

• Government-allotted land can be resumed if the terms of allotment allow it.
• Courts will not entertain allegations of mala fide action without substantial proof.
• Land resumption for public purposes will generally be upheld if done per statutory provisions.
• Judicial review in land resumption cases is limited to checking procedural legality, not policy decisions.

By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the government’s authority in land management while ensuring that resumption orders serve genuine public interests.

Petitioner Name: V. Krishnamurthy & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 26-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: V. Krishnamurthy & A vs State of Tamil Nadu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category