Madras High Court
Sasikala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2021
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 31.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016 and
WMP.Nos.24929 to 24942 of 2016
WP.No.28854 of 2016
Sasikala ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil nadu,
Represented by its Commissioner & Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
By the Chairman and Managing Director,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Anna Nagar, Chennai
4.The Tahsildar,
Aminjikarai Taluk,
Chennai 600 107 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
have lapsed in respect of the property comprised in Sy.132 Part of
Villivakkam Village, Chennai District measuring 1200 sq.ft sought to
acquired under “West Madras Neighbourhood Project” by virtue of 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.T.Magendiran
For Respondents
For R1 & 4 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate
For R2 & 3 : Mr.M.Baskar,
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitions have been filed to issue a writ of declaration
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in respect of the
petitioners' properties situated at Villivakkam Village, Chennai District
sought to be acquired under “West Madras Neighbourhood Project” by
virtue of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, Act 30 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
2. Heard, Mr.T.Magendiran, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents 1 & 4 and Mr.M.Baskar, Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents 2 and 3.
3. On perusal of records, shows that the Government of Tamilnadu
had issued notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to
acquire an extent of 1300 acres of land to establish the housing scheme
“West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme”. On 29.08.1991, notice under
Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to surrender the land.
Aggrieved by the same, writ petition in WP.No.13248 of 1991 was filed,
wherein order was passed on 08.03.2001, against which writ appeal was
filed by the Tamilnadu Housing Board, which was allowed. Thereafter SLP
was filed, wherein the order passed in the writ appeal was confirmed.
4. Therefore, once the petitioners challenged the acquisition
proceedings, they cannot again challenge in the writ petitions on the ground
of non payment of compensation as well as possession. The grounds raised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
by the petitioners in these Writ petitions 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 :-
299. In cases where some landowners
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
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 petitioners.
Therefore, the petitioners failed to satisfy the twin requirements under
Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, 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, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
6. In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
31.08.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Commissioner & Secretary,
State of Tamil nadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009
2.Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Anna Nagar, Chennai
4.The Tahsildar,
Aminjikarai Taluk,
Chennai 600 107
WP.Nos.28854 to 28860 of 2016
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
