T.Vanaja vs The State Government
2021 Latest Caselaw 16346 Mad

                                                                                    W.P.No.2283 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 11.08.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 W.P.No.2283 of 2015

                     T.Vanaja                                           ...        Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     1. The State Government,
                        Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
                        Housing and Urban Department,
                        Fort St. George,
                        Chennai-600 009.

                     2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
                        Represented by its Managing Director,
                        Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

                     3. The District Collector,
                        Collectorate, Kanchipuram,
                        Kanchipuram District.                           ...        Respondents

                     Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to release
                     unutilized land bearing Plot No.12 to an extent of 2000 sq.ft shop comprised
                     in Survey No.369/5 partin Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk,
                     Kanchipuram District as per new Act Section 24(2) to            Right to Fair


                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  W.P.No.2283 of 2015

                     Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
                     Resettlement Act, 2013.


                                   For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Ranganathan
                                   For R1 and R3      : Mr.Richardson Wilson
                                                        Government Advocate

                                   For R2             : Mr.M.Baskar, Standing Counsel

                                                        ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to

release unutilized land bearing Plot No.12 to an extent of 2000 sq.ft shop

comprised in Survey No.369/5 partin Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram

Taluk, Kanchipuram District as per new Act Section 24(2) to Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013. (herein after called as “the New Act”).

2. Heard, Mr.G.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents 1 & 3 and Mr.M.Baskar, Standing Counsel

appearing for the third respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

3. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition have

already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment

reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development Authority

Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., which held as follows :-

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

3. The word or used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as nor or as and. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).

7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all

proposition of law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by

the petitioner. That apart, the subject land was acquired by the Tamil Nadu

Housing Board for public purpose . The award has been passed in Award

No. 5 of 1993 dated 25.09.1993 itself. The acquisition proceedings have

been completed and the subject land was taken over by the government and

the possession was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

15.07.2010 and patta also transferred in patta No.2015. Further the

compensation amount was kept in the Civil Court deposit as awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin

requirements under Section 24 (2) of the New Act i.e., the physical

possession of the land was not taken and the compensation has not been

paid/tendered/deposited in accordance with law. In view of the dictum laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the issues raised by the

petitioner were settled and therefore, the acquisition proceedings have not

been lapsed by operation of law under Section 24 (2) of the New Act i.e.,

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the settled position

of law, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

5. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

11.08.2021

Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2283 of 2015

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

Lpp

To

1. The State Government, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Represented by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

3. The District Collector, Collectorate, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

W.P.No.2283 of 2015

11.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/