Madras High Court
Vimala Jayakar Paul vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2021
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Vimala Jayakar Paul ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways, East Coast Road,
Mamallapuram – 603 104.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that acquisition of
the petitioner's land measuring an extent of 0.05.0 Hectares comprised in
Survey No.111/2C2 in Uthandi Village, Sholinganallur Taluk [formerly
Tambaram Taluk] Kancheepuram District, made by Government vide
G.O.No.1105, PW (Highways) Department dated 04.08.1992 published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.08.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.1166,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
P.W. (Highways) Department dated 10.08.1993 published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 11.08.1993 passed by the respondents stands lapsed
in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Babu
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate.
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to declare acquisition of the
petitioner's land measuring an extent of 0.05.0 Hectares comprised in Survey
No.111/2C2 in Uthandi Village, Sholinganallur Taluk [formerly Tambaram
Taluk] Kancheepuram District, made by Government vide G.O.No.1105, PW
(Highways) Department dated 04.08.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 07.08.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.1166, P.W.
(Highways) Department dated 10.08.1993 published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 11.08.1993 passed by the respondents stands lapsed
in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after
called as “the New Act”).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
2. Heard Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
Act of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding
for 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 for the purpose of East Coast Road
development. The acquisition proceedings have been completed and the
subject land was taken over by the government and the possession was handed
over to the Highways Authorities on 17.08.1995 itself. Further the requisition
body also deposited the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
Officer. Now the East Coast Road has been formed and it is maintained by the
Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited. 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. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.08.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways, East Coast Road,
Mamallapuram – 603 104.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District.
W.P.No.17589 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
