Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 December, 2021
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
R.Venkataramani (deceased)
1. Vijaya Ramani
2. Shanthi Kalyaan
3. Srividhya
(R1 to R3 impleaded
as per order dated 09.12.2021
made in W.M.P.No.26243 of 2021
in W.P.No.23367 of 2014) ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Housing Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Unit) I,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Planning,
Chennai - 600 035.
4. The Executive Engineer and Admn. Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Housing Unit,
Vellore - 632 009.
(R4 impleaded vide order dated
21.09.2021 made in
W.M.P.No.12402 of 2017
in 23367 of 2014) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to Award No.1/95 dated 28.04.1995, passed by the
third respondent, in so far as the petitioner's land is concerned viz., Plot
No.21, comprised in Survey Nos.1225/4C & 9C, in Konneri Kuppam
(Sivakanchi), Kancheepuram Taluk and District to an extent of 1350
sq.ft. and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
put the petitioner into possession of the property within a time frame to
be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Muthusamy
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.S.Vanchinathan
Standing Counsel.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to Award
No.1/95 dated 28.04.1995, passed by the third respondent, in so far as the
petitioner's land is concerned viz., Plot No.21, comprised in Survey
Nos.1225/4C & 9C, in Konneri Kuppam (Sivakanchi), Kancheepuram
Taluk and District to an extent of 1350 sq.ft. and to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to put the petitioner into possession
of the property within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
2. The case of the deceased petitioner is that he purchased
vacant house site in Plot No. 21, comprised in Survey Nos.1225/4C & 9C
situated at Konneri Kuppam (Sivakanchi), Kancheepuram Taluk and
District to an extent of 1350 sq.ft. by the registered sale deed dated
16.04.1987. The Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to acquire the
subject lands for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In this respect, the Special
Tashildar (Land Acquisition), Unit-I Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
Nandanam, Chennai-35 was appointed as an Officer under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act', for
short) in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development (HBS)
Department, dated 05.02.1992 was issued in that regard. The declaration
under Section 6 of the Act, was published in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing
and Urban Development Department, dated 26.04.1993. Further, some of
the land owners had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in
W.P.No.16713 of 1993 and the same was dismissed by this Court. Insofar
as the deceased petitioner is concerned, he received notice on 15.03.1995
under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to
appear for award-enquiry for fixing compensation and passing of an
award. The award was passed in Award No.1 of 1995 on 28.04.1995.
Accordingly, the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,50,502/- for total extent
of 38 cents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they
have not been paid any compensation till today. In fact, the deceased
petitioner had also sent his objections on 10.07.1995 for reference under
Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
the award amount has neither been deposited in the Competent Court nor
paid to the deceased petitioner. After passing the award, the deceased
petitioner was never tendered to receive the compensation as
contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act. The deceased petitioner
also filed a Writ Petition before this Court for re-conveyance of the said
lands and this Court directed the first respondent to consider his
application for re-conveyance. However, the same was rejected by an
order dated 18.10.2005. The deceased petitioner filed an application
under Right to Information Act seeking information with regard to the
details of compensation. On receipt of the same, the deceased petitioner
was informed that the compensation amount was deposited in the
Treasury as early as on 24.01.1997 and the revenue deposit had also
expired on 31.03.2001 and by the communication dated 11.10.2007, they
renewed the lapsed compensation amount. Therefore, the entire land
acquisition proceedings have been lapsed, in view of the proviso to
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). In support of his contentions, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court
reported in 2021 (2) CTC 300 in the case of (K.Saraswathi -vs- State of
Tamil Nadu).
“16. A close reading of all the above portions
culled out from the judgment, clearly point out the fact
that drawing of Panchnama of taking possession is the
correct mode of taking possession in land acquisition
cases, more particularly where the property acquired is a
vacant land or a large tract of land. Taking possession by
adopting to this mode, gives a lot of authenticity to prove
that the land has been taken possession. Under the
Transfer of Property Act, in cases of vacant land,
possession always follow title. However, in the land
acquisition proceedings, it works the other way round
and here the title vests with the State only after taking
possession. In other words, title follows possession. This
position is very clear on a bare reading of Section 16 of
the 1894 Act.
29. It is clear from the above judgments that it is
the duty of the Collector to make payment by issuing
proper notice to the concerned land owner and calling
him to receive the compensation amount. Unless this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
crucial step is followed, the land owner may not even
know whether it was deposited and if so, when the
amount was deposited. Even if a notified person or his
representative participates in the Award proceedings,
that will not amount to a presumption that he has the
notice of the compensation amount being readily
available for payment. That is why Section 12[2] of the
1894 Act specifically mandates issuance of such
notice. If the notice is issued and thereafter, the land
owner refuses to receive the compensation or does not
come to the specified place to receive the
compensation and the compensation amount gets
deposited in a Treasury account or the Court, as the
case may be, the land owner cannot be permitted to
turn around at a later point of time and complain that
the compensation amount was not tendered/paid to
him.
30. In the facts of the present case, the deposit
made in the Court on 04.06.2000 by the Special
Tahsildar (LA), Housing Scheme Unit 1, Coimbatore,
does not amount to a valid tender/payment of
Compensation. This finding is given not by finding fault
in the procedure adopted in the deposit of amount in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
Court, but based on the most crucial fact that there was
no notice issued to the Landowners after the Award
Proceedings, under Section 12(2) of the 1897 Act and
therefore, there was no valid tender/payment of the
compensation to the Landowners. The Judgments cited
supra and the Judgment of the Constitution Bench
clearly supports this finding on the issue of valid
tender/payment of Compensation.
37. Section 24(2) of the Act provides for a deemed
lapse of the entire Acquisition proceedings where the
conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled. Such a deemed
lapse happens by operation of law. In other words, it
does not require a specific declaration by the Court to
declare that the Acquisition proceedings has become bad
unless the situation warrants. The Statute has created
such a provision contemplating deemed lapse on the
coming into force of the 2013 Act where the conditions
stipulated under Section 24(2) of the Act are fulfilled,
viz., not taking possession and non payment of
Compensation. In the present case, this Court has
already held that the possession has not been taken and
Compensation has not been paid in the manner known to
law. At the risk of repetition, this Court again reiterates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
that this Court is not trying to pin point some mistakes
committed by the authorities while taking possession or
paying/tendering Compensation. This Court is holding
that the possession, which has to be taken in a particular
mode and the payment of Compensation, which has to be
tendered/deposited in a particular mode, has not been
done in the facts of the present case and therefore, there
is no taking of possession and payment/tendering of
Compensation in the eye of law. Therefore, the deeming
provision under Section 24(2) of the Act automatically
comes into play in favour of Petitioners by operation of
law.”
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent submitted that the fourth respondent filed counter affidavit
stating that after notice to the deceased petitioner, the award has been
passed on 28.04.1995 in Award No.1 of 1995. Thereafter, the deceased
petitioner was duly tendered to receive the compensation as
contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act on 10.05.1995 and the same
was duly served on the deceased petitioner herein. Even then, the
deceased petitioner failed to come and collect the compensation and as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
such, the respondents made a revenue deposit on 24.01.1997 itself. Since
the revenue deposit was expired on 31.03.2001, it was renewed by the
communication dated 11.10.2007. Thereafter, the award amount was
deposited in the Civil Court deposit as contemplated under Sections 30
and 31(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the award amount has been deposited
before the Sub Court, Kanchipuram. Insofar as the possession of the
subject property is concerned, it has been taken over as early as on
26.07.1996 and thereafter, the possession has been handed over to the
Housing Board on 28.02.2002. Thereafter, the entire revenue records
have been mutated in the name of the Housing Board.
5. Heard Mr.S.Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.M.Muthusamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent.
6. As stated supra, initially the respondents made revenue
deposit as early as on 24.01.1997 itself. That apart, the deceased
petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23777 of 2004 to consider his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
request for re-conveyance of the lands and this Court directed the first
respondent to consider the request of the petitioner by an order dated
25.07.2005. The request of the deceased petitioner was rejected by an
order dated 18.10.2005 for the reason that after awarding the award
amount, the same has been deposited in the revenue deposit and
thereafter, deposited in the Court. The deceased petitioner also failed to
file any objections for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The subject
lands are located in the middle of the lands already acquired and the
possession has been taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the
lands are essentially required for forming the comprehensive housing
scheme. Therefore, they are not inclined to invoke the provisions under
Section 48-B of the Act.
7. Admittedly, the said order was not challenged by the
deceased petitioner. After a period of 9 years, the present Writ Petition
has been filed challenging the very acquisition proceedings under the
provisions 24(2) of the New Act, as if the entire land acquisition
proceedings have been lapsed for non payment of compensation and not
taking of the possession of the property. Therefore, the judgment cited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful to the case on
hand.
8. In view of the above discussions, this Writ Petition is devoid
of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.
09.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Housing Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Unit) I,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Planning,
Chennai - 600 035.
4. The Executive Engineer and Admn. Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Housing Unit,
Vellore - 632 009.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
W.P.No.23367 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
09.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
