Madras High Court

R.S.Prakash Rao vs The Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2021

W.P.No.11213 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.11213 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015 & WMP.No.6253 of 2017

1. R.S.Prakash Rao
2. R.S.Vijayakumar
3. D.Rani ... Petitioners

-Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Religious,
Endowments Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Administration Department,
Chennai – 34.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

4. The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramanyaswamy Thirukoil,
Tiruthani, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
relating to the impugned Award passed by the third respondent in Award No.7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.11213 of 2015

of 1982, dated 16.11.1982 and quash the same, since as per Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) the entire acquisition
proceedings become lapsed.
For petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate.
For R3 : Notice served
For R4 : Mr.J.Ram

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the entire records

relating to the impugned Award passed by the third respondent in Award No.7

of 1982, dated 16.11.1982 and quash the same, since as per Section 24(2) of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) the entire acquisition

proceedings become lapsed.

2. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.J.Ram, learned counsel appearing for the

fourth respondent.

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

W.P.No.11213 of 2015

3. The grounds raised by the petitioners 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 other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.11213 of 2015

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

W.P.No.11213 of 2015

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

W.P.No.11213 of 2015

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 petitioners. That

apart, the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject land

was taken over by the government and the possession was handed over to the

requisition body. Further the requisition body also deposited the compensation

as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the petitioners 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

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