Madras High Court
G.S.Shah vs The Special Tahsildar on 31 August, 2021
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
G.S.Shah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit,
SIPCOT UNIT (4),
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
State Industries Promotion Corporation of
Tamil Nadu Ltd (SIPCOT)
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. M/s.Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Plot No.3, Phase II, Sipcot Industrial Park,
Sandavellur Village, Sriperumbudur,
Kanchipuram District – 602 105. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of declaration, to declare that the land acquisition proceedings
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the land more
fully described in the schedule to the petition, belonging to the petitioner,
situate at Santhavelur Villatge, Block XI of Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram District, as lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate (for R-1)
: Mrs.Sudarshana Sunder (for R-2)
: Mr.Srinath Sridevan (for R-3)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to declare that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the
land, more fully described in the schedule to the petition, belonging to the
petitioner, situate at Santhavelur Village, Block XI of Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' for short).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
2. The writ petition has been filed on the following grounds that
acquired land has not been allotted to the beneficiary and not utilized till the
date and the land is kept idle and as such, the petitioner is entitled to seek
reversion by virtue of Section 24(2) the New Act. The purpose of very
acquisition has not been effected and as such, the entire acquisition
proceedings deemed to have been lapsed. The first and second
respondents/SIPCOT did not pay any compensation till date as per the
enhancement order passed in the LAOP for part of the land and for another
part of the land, no amount had been paid till date. No physical possession of
the land has also been taken.
3. Heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent, Mrs.Sudarshana Sunder, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent and Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent/company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
4. The subject property was acquired for setting up an industrial unit.
After acquisition, the award has also been passed and the same was referred in
LAOP.Nos.305 and 306 of 2007 along with other land owners before the Sub
Court, Kanchipuram for enhancement of compensation. The Court below, by
its judgment and decree dated 21.05.2008, in the said LAOP is enhanced the
compensation amount from Rs.350/- per cent to Rs.5,300/- per cent with 30%
solatium, along with 9% interest. Accordingly, the compensation amount has
also been deposited in the Court. Insofar as the possession of the subject
property is concerned, on 15.09.1999 itself, the possession of the property was
taken over and handed over to the third respondent. It is also evident from the
records produced by the respondents that after passing award, the possession
of the property had also been taken over and handed over to the third
respondent/company, which is evident from the possession certificate dated
15.09.1999. In turn, by the lease dated 09.03.2007, the second
respondent/SIPCOT had also leased out the property in favour of the third
respondent. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove the grounds as
contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Act in this writ petition.
5. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
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
before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
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.”
6. 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 acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject land was also
taken over by the Government on 15.09.1999 itself. The petitioner also
received part of the compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
and the compensation has not been paid/tendered/deposited in accordance with
law. In view of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, the issues raised by the petitioner was settled and therefore, the
acquisition proceedings had not 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.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
31.08.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kv
To
1. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit,
SIPCOT UNIT (4),
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
State Industries Promotion Corporation of
Tamil Nadu Ltd (SIPCOT),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s.Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Ltd.,
Plot No.3, Phase II, Sipcot Industrial Park,
Sandavellur Village, Sriperumbudur,
Kanchipuram District – 602 105.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24297 of 2017
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
