Madras High Court

D.Ganesan vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 13 December, 2021

                                                                                    WP.No.9767 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 13.12.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               WP.No.9767 of 2015 and
                                                  MP.No.1 of 2015

                     D.Ganesan                                            ...      Petitioner
                                                           Vs
                     1.State rep. by its Secretary,
                       Housing & Urban Development Department,
                       Fort St.George,
                       Chennai 600 009
                     2.Tamilnadu Housing Board,
                       Rep.by its Managing Director,
                       No.33, Anna Salai,
                       Nandanam, Chennai 600 035
                     3.The Executive Engineer,
                       Tamilnadu Housing Board,
                       Bhagalur Road, Hosur 635 109
                     4.The Special Tahsildar(L.A.),
                       Hosur Housing Scheme,
                       Bhagalur Road,
                       Hosur, Krishnagiri District                      ...        Respondents

                     Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Land Acquisition

                     Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of

                     land bearing plot No.2, measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. comprised in

                     1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      WP.No.9767 of 2015

                     survey No.929/1 Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District covered by

                     Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide

                     GO.Ms.No.1459, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated

                     15.11.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

                     vide GO.Ms.No.20, Housing and Urban Development Department dated

                     08.01.1993 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair

                     Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

                     Re-settlement Act, 2013.


                                  For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Ayyapparaja


                                  For Respondents
                                    For R1, 2 & 4      : Mr.C.Kathiravan
                                                         Special Government Pleader

                                    For R3             : Dr.R.Gouri,
                                                         Standing Counsel


                                                          ORDER

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring

that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 in respect of land bearing plot No.2, measuring an extent of 2400

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

sq.ft. comprised in survey No.929/1 Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri

District covered by Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 vide GO.Ms.No.1459, Housing and Urban

Development Department, dated 15.11.1991 and Declaration under Section

6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide GO.Ms.No.20, Housing and Urban

Development Department dated 08.01.1993 deemed to have lapsed in view

of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

2. Heard, Mr.V.Ayyapparaja, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1, 2 & 4 and Dr.R.Gouri, Standing Counsel appearing for the

third respondent.

3. The land admeasuring 2400 sq.ft. comprised in survey

No.929/1, Hosur Town, Krishnagiri District originally belonged to one

Chinnappa. He developed the said land and made a lay out of house sites

and sold one of such plot bearing No.2 to the petitioner by the registered

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

sale deed dated 02.03.1983 registered vide document No.800 of 1983. When

the petitioner approached the revenue officials for obtaining patta, he was

informed that the said land was already acquired for the purpose of

construction of houses under Neighbourhood Scheme of Hosur. The

Government of Tamilnadu initiated land acquisition proceedings on behalf

of the Tamilnadu Housing Board to acquire 212 acres of land including the

subject land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Hosur

Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act

was issued on 15.11.1991 and published on 18.01.1991, followed by the

declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued and published on

08.01.1993 and 11.01.1993 respectively. The subject land has been sub

divided as survey No.929/1A to an extent of 1.08.0 hectare and survey

No.979/1B to an extent of 0.08.0 hectare owned originally by Bothi

Kuttamma and Shivarajan respectively as per the award. After following the

due process of law, award was passed on 12.01.1995 in award No.1 of 1995.

Possession of the property has been taken over and handed over to the

requisitioning body on 18.01.1995. Accordingly, the entire records have

been mutated in favour of the third respondent under patta No.457. Layout

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

has been prepared and approved by the planning authority vide layout

approval in DTCP No.71/98. Award amount has been deposited as

contemplated under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in

LAOP.No.630 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur.

4. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.9767 of 2015

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 acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject

land was taken over by the government and the same was handed over to the

requisition body. Further the requisition body also deposited the

compensation as awarded by 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 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)