Madras High Court
G.Vasukinathan vs The District Collector on 24 June, 2021
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
and
WMP(MD)Nos.13755 and 13756 of 2016
G.Vasukinathan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum
Special Tahsildar,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare Department),
Ramanathapuram District.
3.Paul Raj
S/o.Velu
4.Deva Raj
S/o.Velu
5.Arumugam
S/o.Velu
6.Sivaji
S/o.Velu
7.Thinakaran
S/o.Rakkan
8.Aandi
S/o.Velu
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
9.Krishna Moorthy
S/o.Rakkan
10.Paul Pandi
S/o.Velu
11.Panchavarnam
S/o.Karuppan
12.Muniyasamy
S/o.Kali
13.Kali
S/o.Koolayam
14.Arumugam
S/o.Velu
15.Ramayu
W/o.Karuppan
16.Pandi
S/o.Shanmugam
17.Duraikannu
Karuppaiah
18.Karuppaiah
S/o.Duraikannu
19.Murugesan
S/o.Karuppan
20.Karuppaiah
S/o.Duraikannu
21.Pusbha,
W/o.Velu
22.Saravanan,
S/o.Muniyandi
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
23.Parvatham,
S/o.Arumugam
24.Aandi
S/o.Arumugam
25.Kalimuthu,
S/o.Udaiyan
26.Muniyandi,
S/o.Karuppan
27.Murugesan,
S/o.Irulan
28.Raman,
S/o.Arumugam
29.Karuppaiah,
S/o.Velu
30.Pathinettu,
S/o.Thiruvan
31.Muniyandi,
S/o.Raman
32.Velu,
S/o.Rakkan
33.Aruguam,
S/o.Raman
34.Velu,
S/o.Rakkan
35.Anndi,
S/o.Karuppan ... Respondents
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of
declaration, to declare the proceedings of the second
respondent vide his judgment No.8/97-98 dated
14.11.1997 as well as his consequential proceedings
in Na.Ka.A/478/94, dated 26.12.1997 in respect of the
property situated in Survey No.124/1C, Veppankulam
Village, Theeyanur Group, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District is deemed to be lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Nos.1 & 2 Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for
issuance of writ of declaration to declare the
proceedings of the second respondent in judgment No.
8/97-98 dated 14.11.1997 as well as the consequential
proceedings in Na.Ka.A/478/94, dated 26.12.1997 in
respect of the property situated in Survey No.124/1C,
Veppankulam Village, Theeyanur Group, Paramakudi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
Taluk, Ramanathapuram District as deemed to be lapsed
by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the
ground that the possession of the subject property
was not taken away from them.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that though the lands of the petitioner was
acquired by the impugned proceedings neither the
respondents took physical possession of the said land
nor had paid compensation to the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above
prayer.
3.In response to the same, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the official
respondents submitted that the petitioner's land was
acquired by the second respondent vide proceedings in
judgment No.8/97-98, dated 14.11.1997. Further the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
petitioner received the award amount on 12.12.1997.
The learned Government Advocate also produced the
copy of the receipt of the deposit of the
compensation amount.
4. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal & Others, reported in 2020 (5) SCALE 34,
has held that either if compensation has been paid or
possession has been taken, then there cannot be any
lapse in the acquisition proceedings. For better
appreciation, the relevant portion is extracted thus:
“363.3. 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 2013 Act 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.”
5.In the case on hand, it is seen from records
that the petitioner had received the compensation
amount as early as on 12.12.1997 as such, the present
petition cannot be maintained under Section 24(2) of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, in view of the pronouncement in Indore
Development Authority's case (supra).
6. In such view of the matter, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending interim
orders, if any, shall also stand terminated. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are also dismissed.
Index : Yes/No 24.06.2021
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum
Special Tahsildar,
(Adi Dravidar Welfare Department),
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P(MD)No.19039 of 2016
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
