Madras High Court
Mahalakshmi vs The Secretary To Government on 25 August, 2021
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 25.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos. 9483 to 9485 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1, 1, & 1 of 2015
Mahalakshmi ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.9483 of 2015
Subbammal ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.9484 of 2015
Pattu
rep. by Power of Attorney
R.Devadoss ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.9485 of 2015
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Madras Port Trust,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Chairman,
Ennore Port Trust,
Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
4.The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District ... Respondents in all W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.No.9483 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the
entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner comprised in
S.No.744/1 to an extent of acres 0.39 cents situated at No.144, Vallur
Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District as lapsed in view of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Prayer in W.P.No.9484 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the
entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner comprised in
S.No.749/3A to an extent of acres 0.40 cents situated at No.144, Vallur
Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District as lapsed in view of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Prayer in W.P.No.9485 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the
entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner comprised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
S.No.772/1 to an extent of acres 1.28 cents situated at No.144, Vallur
Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District as 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 in all W.Ps : Mr.G.Ilamurugu
For R1 & R4 in all W.Ps : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
For R2 : No appearance
For R3 in all W.Ps : Mr.Krishna Ravichandran
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed to issue a writ of declaration,
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners'
properties as lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 i.e., Act 30 of 2013 (herein after called as “the New
Act”).
2. Heard, Mr.G.Ilamurugu, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 4, and Mr.Krishna Ravichandran, the learned counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent. None appeared on behalf of the second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
3. The grounds raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions have
already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others etc reported in
2020 8 SCC 129, wherein it is 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 1.1.2015 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
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 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/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 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/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on
1.1.2015. 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., 1.1.2015. 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 subject land was acquired for the purpose of construction of
staff quarters for Madras Port Trust from small farmers. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
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 to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the settled position of
law, these writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
25.08.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Madras Port Trust,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Chairman,
Ennore Port Trust,
Chennai.
4.The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.9483 to 9485 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
W.P.Nos. 9483 to 9485 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1, 1, & 1 of 2015
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
