Madras High Court
Standard Screen Films Mfg.Co.(P) ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 August, 2021
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012 and
MP.Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2012
WP.No.8383 of 2014
Standard Screen Films Mfg.Co.(P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
S.A.Jhan Mohamed,
No.1, Kumaran Nagar,
Sholinganallur, Chennai-96 ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35
3.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),
Tamilnadu Housing Board Schemes,
Nandanam, Chennai-35 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the Section 4(1) notification
dated 14.05.1990 and all subsequent land acquisition proceedings in respect
of lands of the petitioner of an extent of 0.63 acres in survey Nos.410/2,
411/3, 411/4 situated at Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District
have lapsed as per Section 24(1) and (2) of The Right to Fair compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Subhashini
for M/s.Chennai Law Associates
For Respondents
For R1 & 3 : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.M.Baskar,
Standing Counsel
WP.No.4523 of 2012
Standard Screen Films Mfg.Co.(P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
S.A.Jhan Mohamed,
No.1, Kumaran Nagar,
Sholinganallur, Chennai-96 ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
2.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35
3.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),
Tamilnadu Housing Board Schemes,
Nandanam, Chennai-35 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the
Section 4 (1) notification dated 14.05.1990 and all subsequent land
acquisition proceedings in respect of lands of the petitioner of an extent of
0.63 acres in survey Nos.410/2, 411/3, 411/4 situated at Sholinganallur
Village, Kancheepuram District under Section 48(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act and denotify the same as possession has not been taken till
date.
(Prayer amended as per order dated 05.03.2012 in MP.No.2 of 2012 in
WP.No.4523 of 2012)
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Subhashini
for M/s.Chennai Law Associates
For Respondents
For R1 & 3 : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.M.Baskar,
Standing Counsel
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
COMMON ORDER
The writ petition in WP.No.8383 of 2014 has been filed to
issue a writ of declaration declaring that the Section 4(1) notification dated
14.05.1990 and all subsequent land acquisition proceedings in respect of
lands of the petitioner of an extent of 0.63 acres in survey Nos.410/2, 411/3,
411/4 situated at Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District have
lapsed as per Section 24(1) and (2) of The Right to Fair compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased property
to an extent of 1.13 acres comprised in survey Nos.410/1, 410/2, 411/2,
411/3, 411/3B and 411/4 situated at Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram
District by the registered sale deed dated 24.09.1993 vide document
No.4560 of 1993 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar. These lands are
used for running a factory for production of its product. The first respondent
issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.05.1990
and the same was published in GO.Ms.No.433. The petitioner was not
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
served any notice as required under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act. The petitioner raised objections and on the said objections, the third
respondent recommended for exclusion of the petitioner's land dated
11.07.1994 and stated that the subject area notified in the survey Nos.
formed a compact block for the company and as the area notified lay on the
south west corner of the scheme boundary which would not affect the
housing programme, and the lands in survey Nos.410/2, 411/3, 411/4 could
be exempted.
2.1 In this regard, the third respondent asked for report from the
second respondent. However, the same was not considered and award has
been passed on 02.05.1997 in Award No.1 of 1997. In fact, the petitioner
was called for award enquiry and award has been passed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was not paid compensation and also the possession of the subject
property is not taken even till today. Therefore, as contemplated under
Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the entire
acquisition proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed.
4. Heard, M/s.K.Subhashini, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 3, and Mr.M.Baskar, Standing Counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
5. On perusal of the counter filed by the second respondent revealed
that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 23.05.1990 in respect of the
subject property. After 4(1) notification, by the sale deed dated 21.04.1993,
the petitioner purchased the subject property by the registered document
No.1472 of 1993. Therefore, the petitioner admittedly is subsequent
purchaser to the 4(1) notification of the old Act i.e. Land Acquisition Act,
1894. However, the petitioner being subsequent purchaser, he was served
notice and he participated in the award enquiry and he was served notice
dated 02.05.1997 requesting the petitioner to come and receive the
compensation, failing which the said amount will be deposited in revenue
6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
deposit and the same will have no interest. However, the petitioner failed to
receive the communication and as such deposited in the revenue deposit.
The petitioner also filed several writ petitions before this Court challenging
the acquisition proceedings and the same were dismissed by this Court. In
fact, the petitioner also filed writ petition for direction directing the first
respondent to consider his request for re-conveyance of the land under
Section 48-B of the Act. However, the first respondent by the reply dated
17.06.2003, justified the action of acquiring the subject property and the
acquisition proceedings are not yet over and only after taking over
possession and development, the question of re-conveyance of the land will
be considered and hence his request was rejected. It was challenged in the
writ appeal in WA.No.659 of 2009 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court also dismissed the same by order dated 21.07.2010.
6. Therefore, on several occasions, the petitioner approached this
Court by way of so many writ petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings, one way or other. That apart, the petitioner is being subsequent
purchaser, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated before his
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
purchase. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 229 in the case of Shiv Kumar and anr Vs Union of India
and ors, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“13. The definition of 'landowner' is in
Section 3(r), the same is extracted hereunder:
3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,-- .....
(r) "landowner" includes any person,-- (i)
whose name is recorded as the owner of the land
or building or part thereof, in the records of the
authority concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights
under the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under
any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights
on the land under any law of the State including
assigned lands; or (iv) any person who has been
declared as such by an order of the court or
Authority;
Landowner is a person who is recorded as the
owner of land or building. The record of date of
8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
issuance of preliminary notification Under
Section 11 is relevant. A purchaser after Section
11 cannot be said to be a landowner within the
purview of Section 3(r).
............................
21. Thus, under the provisions of Section
24 of the Act of 2013, challenge to acquisition
proceeding of the taking over of possession
under the Act of 1894 cannot be made, based on
a void transaction nor declaration can be sought
Under Section 24(2) by such incumbents to
obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition
has lapsed under the Act of 2013 is to get the
property back whereas, the transaction once
void, is always a void transaction, as no title can
be acquired in the land as such no such
declaration can be sought. It would not be legal,
just and equitable to give the land back to
purchaser as land was not capable of being sold
which was in process of acquisition under the
Act of 1894. The Act of 2013 does not confer any
right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void.
Such void transactions are not validated under
the Act of 2013. No rights are conferred by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a
purchaser as against the State.
22. 'Void is, ab initio,' a nullity, is
inoperative, and a person cannot claim the land
or declaration once no title has been conferred
upon him to claim that the land should be given
back to him. A person cannot enforce and ripe
fruits based on a void transaction to start
claiming title and possession of the land by
seeking a declaration Under Section 24 of the
Act of 2013; it will amount to conferment of
benefit never contemplated by the law. The
question is, who can claim declaration/rights
Under Section 24(2) for the restoration of land
or lapse of acquisition. It cannot be by a person
with no title in the land. The provision of the Act
of 2013 cannot be said to be enabling or
authorizing a purchaser after Section 4 to
question proceeding taken under the Act of 1894
of taking possession as held in U.P. Jal Nigam
(supra) which is followed in M. Venkatesh
(supra) and other decisions and consequently
claim declaration Under Section 24 of the Act of
2013. What cannot be done directly cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
permitted in an indirect method.
23. The provisions of the Act of 2013
aimed at the acquisition of land with least
disturbance to the landowners and other affected
families and to provide just and fair
compensation to affected families whose land
has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or
are affected and to make adequate provisions for
such affected persons for their rehabilitation and
resettlement. The provisions of Act of 2013 aim
at ousting all inter-meddlers from the fray by
ensuring payment in the bank account of
landholders Under Section 77 of the Act.
24. The intendment of Act of 2013 is to
benefit farmers etc. Subsequent purchasers
cannot be said to be landowners entitled to
restoration of land and cannot be termed to be
affected persons within the provisions of Act of
2013. It is not open to them to claim that the
proceedings have lapsed Under Section 24(2).”
7. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
held that challenging the acquisition proceedings under the provision of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
Section 24 of the New Act cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor
declaration to get the property back. The transaction once void, is always a
void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such, no such
declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give
the land back to the purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which
was in process of acquisition under the Act of 1894. Therefore, the New Act
does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void.
Therefore the petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings being
the subsequent purchaser.
8. Insofar as possession and compensation are concerned, as stated
supra, the petitioner was requested to receive the compensation by the letter
dated 02.05.1997 and thereafter challenged the acquisition proceedings in
various writ petitions. Finally, writ petition was filed for re-conveyance of
the subject property and the same was also rejected by this Court and the
same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore, the issue in this writ petition already went against the petitioner.
The present writ petition is nothing but re-agitating the same issue under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
provisions of Section 24(2) of the new Act i.e. The Right to Fair
compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. However, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
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 award has been passed on 02.05.1997 in Award No.1 of 1997 itself.
9. 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. Accordingly, the writ petition in
WP.No.8383 of 2014 is dismissed.
10. The writ petition in WP.No.4523 of 2012 has been filed to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the Section 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
(1) notification dated 14.05.1990 and all subsequent land acquisition
proceedings in respect of lands of the petitioner of an extent of 0.63 acres in
survey Nos.410/2, 411/3, 411/4 situated at Sholinganallur Village,
Kancheepuram District under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and
denotify the same as possession has not been taken till date.
11. In view of the order passed in WP.No.8383 of 2014, the writ
petition in WP.No.4523 of 2012 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
27.08.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35
3.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition),
Tamilnadu Housing Board Schemes,
Nandanam, Chennai-35
WP.Nos.8383 of 2014 & 4523 of 2012
27.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
