Madras High Court
Parameswari vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 August, 2021
WP.No.25225 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.25225 of 2014
Parameswari ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Land Acquisition Incharge,
Vellore ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of declaration to declare the entire land acquisition
proceedings in respect of GO.Ms.No.397 dated 06.03.1987 as deemed to
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 in respect of petitioner's property bearing survey No.69/3C of
Kondasamudram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District with an extent
of 2.22 acres.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal
For Respondents
For R1 & 3 : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.S.Vanchinathan,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of declaration to
declare the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect of GO.Ms.No.397
dated 06.03.1987 as deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of petitioner's property
bearing survey No.69/3C of Kondasamudram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District with an extent of 2.22 acres.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
2. The case of the petitioner is that even till today, no possession has
been taken and no compensation amount is paid to the petitioner. The
petitioner owned the property in survey No.69/3C of Kondasamuthram
Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District with an extent of 2.22 acres.
3. On perusal of the records, revealed that already the petitioner filed
writ petition in WP.No.5092 of 1989 challenging the acquisition
proceedings after passing award in Award No.6 of 1989 dated 15.03.1989
and the petitioner went upto Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and confirmed
the same. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ petition to drop the acquisition
proceedings and the same was dismissed, and in the writ appeal, the order
passed in the writ petition was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner also went upto Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.No.7685
of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the order dated 19.05.2011. In fact,
the petitioner also filed another writ petition for re-conveyance of the
subject property in writ petition No.1238 of 2002. Though this Court
directed the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 22.01.1997,
the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
commencement of new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 on the ground that the award amount not paid to the petitioner and
possession also not taken from the petitioner as contemplated under Section
24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
4. Copy of the transfer of charge certificate produced by the
respondents revealed that on 05.03.1989, the possession of the subject land
was handed over to the second respondent. Insofar as the compensation is
concerned, they deposited in the revenue deposit. However, the petitioner
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings repeatedly, that too after
commencement of the new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. In this regard, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
ors etc., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, held as follows :-
299. In cases where some landowners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
have chosen to take recourse to litigation (which
they have a right to) and have obtained interim
orders on taking possession or orders of status quo,
as a matter
of practical reality it is not possible for the
authorities or State officials to take the possession
or to make payment of the compensation. In several
instances, such interim orders also impeded the
making of an award. Now, so far as awards (and
compensation payments, pursuant to such
proceedings were concerned) the period provided
for making of awards under the Act of 2013 could be
excluded by virtue of Explanation to Section
11A.192 Thus, no fault of inaction can be attributed
to the authorities and those who had obtained such
interim orders, cannot benefit by their own action in
filing litigation, which may or may not be
meritorious. Apart from the question of merits, when
there is an interim order with respect to the
possession or order of status quo or stay of further
proceedings, the authorities cannot proceed; nor
can they pay compensation. Their obligations are
intertwined with the scheme of land acquisition. It is
observed that authorities may wait in the
proceedings till the interim order is vacated.
300. In our considered opinion, litigation
which initiated by the landowners has to be decided
on its own merits and the benefits of Section 24(2)
should not be available to the litigants. In case there
is no interim order, they can get the benefits they are
entitled to, not otherwise as a result of fruit of
litigation, delays and dilatory tactics and some time
it may be wholly frivolous pleas and forged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
documents as observed in V. Chandrasekaran
(supra) mentioned above.
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
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
the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
5. 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 in Award No.6 of 1989 dated 15.03.1989
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
itself and the possession of the property has already been taken by the
Government and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The
compensation was also deposited in the revenue deposit. 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. Therefore, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced
photographs showing that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of
the subject property even till today. He further submitted that for the entire
scheme of the Housing Board, the second respondent dropped the subject
property and the subject property is free of their requirement. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.25225 of 2014
petitioner is at liberty to make fresh request for re-conveyance of the subject
property. On receipt of the said request, the authority concerned is directed
to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is dismissed. 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.No.25225 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.Commissioner and Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Land Acquisition Incharge,
Vellore
WP.No.25225 of 2014
27.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
