Madras High Court
Prema Prasad vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2021
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012, 5191 to 5196 of 2013, 5228 to 5233 of
2013, 6122 to 6126 of 2013, 12180 to 12184 of 2013, 19647 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
W.P.No.18004 of 2012
Prema Prasad ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government
Tourism Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Tamilnadu Tourism Development
Corporation Limited,
No.2 Wallaja Road, Triplicane,
Chennai 600 002.
Rep. by its Managing Director. ... Respondents
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Land Acquisition
Proceedings culminating in the award bearing No.11 of 86 dated 23.09.1986
in respect of the land in Survey No.46/3B in No.156, Mamallapuram
(Devaneri Village) Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(Prayer Amended as per order dated 01.11.2021 by GKIJ in M.P.No.1 of 2014
in W.P.No.18004 of 2012)
For Petitioner :Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior counsel
in all WP's for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents
in W.P.18002 to 18007 of 2012,
5191 to 5196 of 2013,
5228 to 5233 of 2013,
12180 to 12184 of 2013,
19647 of 2013
for 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG
Assisted by Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
2/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
For Respondent 3
in W.P.18002 to 18007 of 2012,
5191 to 5196 of 2013,
5228 to 5233 of 2013,
12180 to 12184 of 2013,
19647 of 2013 : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
in W.P.6122 to 6126 Government Advocate
of 2013
**********
COMMON ORDER
All the writ petitioners were owned their respective land situated at
Mamallapuram (Devaneri Village), Chengleput, Kancheepuram District.
While being so, the total extent of land admeasuring 15.02 acres comprised in
Survey No.46/1A etc., inclusive of the land which belongs to all the
petitioners herein were sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamil
Nadu by issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act") vide G.O.Ms.No.4828 Public
(Tourism Department) dated 06.12.1974. In pursuant to the 4(1) Notification,
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the Government in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
G.O.Ms.No.2560 Public (Tourism -1 Department) dated 19.12.1977.
Thereafter, on 23.09.1986 the award was passed in Award No.11 of 1986.
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are the subsequent
purchasers after passing the award. Insofar as the 5 writ petitioners have
received compensation as per the award passed in Award No.11 of 1986 dated
23.09.1986. Insofar as the other writ petitioners are concerned, they have not
received compensation. Therefore, all the writ petitioners submitted their
representations to reconvey their respective land. However, their
representations were not considered and as such, the 5 writ petitions filed
before this Court for direction. All the writ petitions were disposed of by this
Court and thereby directed the first respondent herein to consider their
representations under Section 48B of the Act for reconvey. All the requests
were rejected by the impugned orders and aggrieved by the same the present
writ petitions are filed.
3. While pending the writ petitions, the petitioners filed writ
miscellaneous petitions to amend the prayer and also seeking permission to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
raise additional grounds as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as "New Act"). As per the
amended prayer they sought for declaration declaring that the land
acquisition proceedings culminated in Award No.11 of 1986 dated
23.09.1986 in respect of their respective land as lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the New Act, and all the petitions are allowed.
4. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent
are not Germaine or material for considering the application for reconveyance
of land under Section 48B of the Act. The provision under Section 48B of
the Act is the requirement of the land for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other public purpose. There is absolutely no
consideration or finding by the first respondent while considering their
representations to reconvey the respective land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
5. The subject lands have not been used by the Tamil Nadu Tourism
Development Corporation Limited for any purpose. Even till today, all the
subject land is lying vacant and as such the impugned order is liable to be
quashed. Insofar as the possession is concerned, the subject land have not
been taken possession from the petitioners respective possession and
enjoyment. The respondents caused only symbolic possession that too only
leaving the land delivery receipt and mentioned the date of taken over and
handed over. This procedure is not in accordance with 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.,.
6. Accordingly, the panchnama has to be prepared while taking the
possession. The drawing of panchnama is the mode of taking possession of
land acquisition cases, thereupon the land based in the State and any re-entry
or reopening the possession thereafter is unlawful in view for confirming
benefits under Section 24(2) of the New Act. Insofar as the compensation is
concerned some of the land owners have received compensation and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
respect of others have not received compensation. The respondents also
failed to produce any records to show that the petitioners have received
compensation and the possession has been taken over from the petitioners.
7. He further submitted that when the possession has not been
taken over from the respective petitioners in respect of their respective land.
Therefore, the acquisition proceedings is not yet concluded and it is pending.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the New Act. In support of his
contention, he also relied upon the same Judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC
129 in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors
etc., held as follows:
"340. Before proceeding further, in our
opinion, Section 24 contemplates pending
proceedings and not the concluded ones in which
possession has been taken, and compensation has
been paid or deposited. Section 24 does not
provide an arm or tool to question the legality of
proceedings, which have been undertaken under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
the Act of 1894 and stood concluded before five
years or more. It is only in cases where possession
has not been taken, nor compensation is paid, that
there is a lapse. In case possession has been taken,
and compensation has not been deposited with
respect to majority of landholdings, the beneficial
provision of the statute provides that all
beneficiaries shall be paid compensation as
admissible under the Act of 2013. The
beneficiaries, i.e., landowners contemplated under
the proviso to Section 24(2), are the ones who were
so recorded as beneficiaries as on the date of
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act
of 1894. 227 (2006) 3 SCC 286 The provision is
not meant to be invoked on the basis of void
transactions, and by the persons who have
purchased on the basis of power of attorney or
otherwise, they cannot claim the benefit
under Section 24 as is apparent from proviso
to Section 24(2) and the decision in Shiv Kumar
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors228.
341. This Court is cognizant that Section
24 is used for submitting various claims, by way of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
filing applications in the pending proceedings
either before the High Court or this Court. There
are cases in which in the first round of litigation
where the challenge to acquisition proceedings has
failed, validity has been upheld, and possession
has been taken after passing of the award. It is
contended that drawing of panchnama was not the
permissible mode to take possession, and actual
physical possession remains with such
landowners/purchasers/power of attorney holders
as such benefit of Section 24 should be given to
them notwithstanding the fact that they have
withdrawn the compensation also."
"274. It was submitted on behalf of
landowners that under Section 24 the expression
used is not possession but physical possession. In
our opinion, under the Act of 1894 when
possession is taken after award is passed
under section 16 or under section 17 before the
passing of the award, land absolutely vests in the
State on drawing of Panchnama of taking
possession, which is the mode of taking possession.
Thereafter, any re-entry in possession or retaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
the possession is wholly illegal and trespasser’s
possession inures for the benefit of the owner and
even in the case of open land, possession is deemed
to be that of the owner. When the land is vacant
and is lying open, it is presumed to be that of the
owner by this Court as held in Kashi Bai v. Sudha
Rani Ghose180. Mere re-entry on Government land
once it is acquired and vests absolutely in the State
(under the Act of 1894) does not confer, any right
to it and Section 24(2) does not have the effect of
divesting the land once it vests in the State."
8. In which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that under
Section 24(2) of the New Act, it was submitted on behalf of landowners that
under Section 24 the expression used is not possession but physical
possession. In our opinion, under the Act of 1894 when possession is taken
after award is passed under Section 16 or under Section 17 before the passing
of the award, land absolutely vests in the State on drawing of Panchnama of
taking possession, which is the mode of taking possession. Thereafter, any re-
entry in possession or retaining the possession is wholly illegal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
trespasser’s possession inures for the benefit of the owner and even in the
case of open land, possession is deemed to be that of the owner. When the
land is vacant and is lying open, it is presumed to be that of the owner by this
Court as held in Kashi Bai v. Sudha Rani Ghose180. Mere re-entry on
Government land once it is acquired and vests absolutely in the State (under
the Act of 1894) does not confer, any right to it and Section 24(2) does not
have the effect of divesting the land once it vests in the State.
9. He further submitted that under Section 26 of the Act, when the
Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the
land, which shall thereupon (vest absolutely in the Government), free from all
encumbrances. However, if the possession has not been taken over, it is
contemplated under the Act, that the subject land never vest with the
Government. Thereafter, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed as
contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Act.
10. Per contra, the respondents filed counter and the learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the subject lands were acquired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
by the Government of Tamil Nadu by issuance of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.4828 dated 06.12.1974 for the purpose of
preservation of Environmental and aesthetic character and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2560
dated 19.12.1977. Thereafter, the compensation amount sanctioned in
G.O.Ms.No.311 dated 08.07.1986 and in G.O.Ms.No.613 dated 03.09.1986.
11. The entire land has been taken over by the Revenue Department
in the year 1988. Thereafter, handed over to the Tamil Nadu Tourism
Development Corporation (hereinafter called as "TTDC"). The TTDC had
taken the following steps for utilization of the land:-
i) Establishment of open air museum and open air auditorium with
Government of India Assistance.
ii) Establishment of Mini Golf Course under Public Private
participation (PPP) Mode.
iii) Establishment of Youth Hostel of International standard.
iv) Establishment of Water Sports under (PPP) Mode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
12. Therefore the TTDC has taken efforts to attract investment from
private sector for establishment of viable Tourism Project as indicated above.
The State Government have already issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.102 dated
11.06.2012 for establishment of Tamil Nadu Maritime Heritage Museum at
Mamallapuram with the de-commissioned VAGLI Submarine as center piece
and to establish the Maritime Heritage Museum with all facilities such as
Maritime Heritage, Marine Technology, Audio Visual Studio, Souvenir Shop,
Food Court, Aquarium etc. The TTDC has been designated as Nodal Agent
for execution of this project to an extent of 15.2 acres of land comprised in
Survey No.46 was initially identified for establishment of Maritime Heritage
Museum. However, taking into account the restrictions of CRZ and other
logistic bottle-necks and the requirements of land for this project.
13. The Hon'ble Minister for Finance in the floor of the State
Assembly has announced that the State Government would establish an
Oceanarium (Under Water World Acquarium) of international standard at a
cost of Rs.250 Crores on PPP Model. As it is sea-based project, the 15 acres
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
of land under Survey No.46 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B at Mamallapuram has been
identified for establishment of this prestigious Project, which will be the first
of its kind in India.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General also produced the
resolution based in the 270th Board Meeting of the Tamil Nadu Development
Corporation. Thereafter, the proposal for fixation of lease rent for 5.29.5
hectares of land at Mamallapuram belonging to TTDC was placed before the
Board in its 270th meeting held on 12.11.2015. The Board after discussion
passed the resolution that to approve the proposal of lease to an extent of
5.29.5 hectares of land at Mamallapuram belonging to TTDC at an annual
lease rent of Rs.1 crore per annum with 5% escalation year on year
throughout the concession period of 33 years for the project of Oceanarium to
be established by Fisheries Department, subject to Government Approval.
15. The said communication to TTDC with regards to
Establishment of World Class Oceanarium at Mamallapuram on PPP basis
and with regards the same the fourth tender is in process and requested to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
financial proposal scheduled on 10.01.2019. Again by the communication
dated 05.09.2020 sent to the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department requested to the Government
implementing project through TTDC.
16. He further submitted that therefore, the entire project as on and
it has to be completed with the aid of State Government as well as the Central
Government. Insofar as the possession of the respective land is concerned
the possession has been taken over and handed over in respect of the subject
property as early as on 05.04.1988 and handed over to the TTDC. Thereafter,
the entire revenue records were mutated in the name of the TTDC and in the
above said projects have been developed in the name of the TTDC.
17. Insofar as the compensation is concerned almost all the writ
petitioners have duly received their respective compensation for their
respective land. In fact, some of the writ petitioners have subsequently
purchased their respective property and they do not know whether the
original land owner received compensation or not. Once the subject land has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
been taken over and handed over to the requisition body the acquisition
proceedings have not lapsed as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New
Act.
18. He further submitted that all the writ petitioners originally filed
writ petitions challenging the order of rejection, thereby rejecting the
requisition for reconveyance under Section 48B of the Act. However, while
pending the writ petitions all the writ petitioners have filed petition to amend
the prayer, thereby challenged the acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the New Act. Therefore, after a period of 34 years now the
petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated under
Section 4(1) of the Act dated 06.12.1974. All the petitioners had been
accepted the acquisition proceedings and also received the compensation for
their respective land and now they challenged the acquisition proceedings.
19. He further submitted that once the subject land vested with the
Government, the land owners cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings
on the ground that the subject land are not used for the public purpose or used
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
for other purpose. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment
reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558 Government of A.P. and another -vs- Syed
Akbar, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the land
acquired for public purpose, unutilised land, reassignment or reconveyance of
Land to erstwhile owner held was not permissible in view of the law settled
by the Supreme Court of India. In this regard High Court was not justified in
directing the authorities to handover the unused portion of the land to the
erstwhile owner after the public purpose was achieved, unused land can be
used for another public purpose.
20. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in (2012) 12 SCC
133 V.Chandrasekaran and another -vs- Administrative Officer and
another held that Land once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure
holders / persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it
was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. Once the land is acquired
and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
the landowner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it
was acquired or for any other purpose.
21. Heard, Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior counsel for
M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Richardson
Wilson, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and
Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned standing counsel for the third respondent.
22. All the petitioners have challenged the order impugned in this
writ petitions, thereby rejected their claim for reconveyance under Section
48B of the Act. The subject lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil
Nadu by issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act by
G.O.Ms.No.4828 dated 06.12.1974 for the purpose of preservation of
Environmental and aesthetic character. Thereafter, the declaration was made
under Section 6 of the Act by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2560 dated
19.12.1977. After complying all the procedures as contemplated under the
Act the award has been passed on 23.09.1986 in Award No.11 of 1986.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
According to the petitioners, the respondents have acquired the subject land
for an alleged public purpose, the said land has not been utilized for any
purpose, the land remain waste from 1986 till the filing of the all the writ
petitions.
23. It is not used by Government much less for which it was sought
to be acquired for the alleged public purpose. Thus, it is clear that the
possession of the subject land had been already taken over and it has not been
utilized for any purpose and it has been allowed to remain waste from the
year 1986. Therefore, after the period of 34 years now the petitioner cannot
say that the possession of the land has not been taken over and all the
petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their subject land.
24. On perusal of the records revealed that under the land delivery
receipt the subject land to an extent of 5.97.5 hectares was handed over to the
TTDC under the Award No.11 of 1986 dated 23.09.1986 and the said land
had been taken over by the TTDC on 05.04.1988. Thereafter, the State
Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.102, Tourism and Culture Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
dated 11.06.2012 for establishment of Tamil Nadu Maritime Heritage
Museum at Mamallapuram with the de-commissioned VAGLI Submarine as
center piece and to establish the Maritime Heritage Museum with all
facilities. Thereafter, the TTDC has been designated as Nodal Agent for
execution of this project.
25. That apart to an extent of 15.2 acres of land comprised in
Survey No.46 was initially identified for establishment of Maritime Heritage
Museum as per the restrictions of CRZ and other logistic bottle-necks and the
requirements of the land for this project has been identified to implement the
head project. Immediately, after taken over the possession of the subject
property the TTDC had taken the following steps for utilization of land.
i) Establishment of open air museum and open air auditorium with
Government of India Assistance.
ii) Establishment of Mini Golf Course under Public Private
participation (PPP) Mode.
iii) Establishment of Youth Hostel of International standard.
iv) Establishment of Water Sports under (PPP) Mode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
26. It is also seen that the Hon'ble Minister for Finance had
announced that the State Government would establish an Oceanarium (Under
Water World Aquarium) of International Standard at a cost of Rs.250 Crores
on PPP Model. The land admeasuring 15 acres comprised in Survey No.46
1A, 1B, 3A and 3B at Mamallapuram has been identified for establishment of
this prestigious project. The State Government have also sanctioned a sum of
Rs.2 crores as initial capital for establishment of Adventure Water Sports in
Tamil Nadu. The TTDC and Sports Development Authority have taken steps
to identify repute Organizations of Adventure Water Sports for establishment
of Adventure Water Sports in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, it is not possible to
reconvey the land after a lapse of several years, since it is being necessary for
public purpose.
27. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, even according to the
petitioners, some of them have already received compensation and in respect
of the some of the writ petitioners admittedly are subsequent purchasers. As
rightly pointed out by the Additional Advocate General when all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
petitioners made representations to reconveyance of their respective subject
land, they do not whisper about non payment of compensation as well as the
non taking possession from their possession by the respondents.
28. On perusal of the respective representations of the petitioners,
their sole grievance is that from the year 1986 to till date the property has not
been utilized by the Government for the alleged public purpose, for which it
was sought to acquired. The land which has been acquired it just allow to
remain waste from 1986 to till date for the period of 25 years. Therefore,
they had submitted representations for reconveyance of their respective
subject land. Further, if at all the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment
of their respective property, they would have utilized for their purposes.
Thus, it is clear that the entire possession of the subject land had been already
taken over and handed over to the TTDC for its respective projects. In this
regard, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the Judgment
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 V.Chandrasekaran and another -vs-
Administrative Officer and another held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
"25. It is a settled legal proposition, that
once the land is vested in the State, free from all
encumbrances, it cannot be divested and
proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if
an award is not made within the statutorily
stipulated period. (Vide: Avadh Behari Yadav v.
State of Bihar &. Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.
(Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v.
Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424, M.
Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,
(2000) 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra
Pradesh v. Syed Akbar & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 492).
26. The said land, once acquired, cannot
be restored to the tenure holders/persons-interested,
even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was
so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The
proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under
the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or
under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once
the possession of the land has been taken and the
land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances.
(Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma, AIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh
& Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC
1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 1993 SC 2517; Rajasthan Housing Board &
Ors. v. Shri Kishan & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 84
and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of
India v. Subodh Singh & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 100).
27. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has
been considered by this Court time and again. In
Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi
Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344, this Court
held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies as per
the context of the Statute, under which the property
vests. So far as the vesting under Sections
16 and 17 of the Act is concerned, the Court held as
under.-
"19. ......... In the cases contemplated
by Sections 16 and 17, the property acquired
becomes the property of Government without
any condition or ; limitations either as to
title or possession. The legislature has made
it clear that vesting of the property is not for
any limited purpose or limited duration.”
28. In Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, in a similar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
situation, this Court held as under:-
"5. ......... Once the original acquisition is
valid and title has vested in the
Municipality, how it uses the excess land is
no concern of the original owner and
cannot be the basis for invalidating the
acquisition. There is no principle of law by
which a valid compulsory acquisition
stands voided because long later the
requiring Authority diverts it to a public
purpose other than the one stated in the …
.declaration.”
29.Similarly, in State of Kerala & Anr. v.
M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 432, this
Court held as under:
“4. .......... It is settled law that if the land is
acquired for a public purpose, after the
public purpose was achieved, the rest of the
land could be used for any other public
purpose. In case there is no other public
purpose for which the land is needed, then
instead of disposal by way of sale to the
erstwhile owner, the land should be put to
public auction and the amount fetched in the
public auction can be better utilised for the
public purpose envisaged in the Directive
Principles of the Constitution.
(See also: C. Padma & Ors. v. Deputy
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu
& Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627; Bhagat Singh v.
State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja v.
State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC
2532; Northern Indian Glass Industries v.
Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335;
and Leelawanti & Ors. v. State of Haryana
& Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 66).
30. In Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr. v. Syed Akbar (Supra), this Court considered
this very issue and held that, once the land has
vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by
virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be
reconveyed to the persons- interested/tenure
holders, and that therefore, the question of
restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does
not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 1996 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC
405; State of Kerala & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai
& Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore) . Ltd.
v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC
460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R.
Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech
Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
(2011) 9 SCC 354)."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
29. Thus, it is clear that once the possession of the land has been
vested in the State, free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the
land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other purpose. It cannot be the basis for invalidating the
acquisition. Once the land acquired, it cannot be restored to the Land owner /
persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other purpose either.
30. In the case on hand, admittedly the possession had been already
taken over and handed over to the TTDC and as such the subject land vested
in the State, free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the first respondent
rightly rejected the claim of reconveyance of the petitioners for their
respective subject land. Insofar as the grounds raised under Section 24(2) of
the New Act as stated supra the entire compensation has been already
received by the petitioners except some of the petitioners. Insofar as the
possession is concerned as stated supra already the possession has been taken
over and handed over to the TTDC and the project is so on.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
31. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings had been
concluded and it cannot be revived back. In this regard the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners submitted that while taking possession of the
subject land the respondents failed to draw any panchnama and as such the
land acquisition proceedings has not been concluded and some of the writ
petitioners have not been received compensation even till today. In support
of his contention he relied upon the Judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc.,
which held as follows:-
"279. The court is alive to the fact that
are a large number of cases where, after
acquisition land has been handed over to various
corporations, local authorities, acquiring bodies,
etc. After depositing compensation (for the
acquisition) those bodies and authorities have
been handed possession of lands. They, in turn,
after development of such acquired lands have
handed over properties; third party interests have
intervened and now declaration is sought under
the cover of section 24(2) to invalidate all such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
actions. As held by us, section 24 does not intend
to cover such cases at all and such gross misuse of
the provisions of law must stop. Title once vested,
cannot be obliterated, without an express legal
provision; in any case, even if the landowners’
argument that after possession too, in case of non-
payment of compensation, the acquisition would
lapse, were for arguments’ sake, be accepted, these
third party owners would be deprived of their
lands, lawfully acquired by them, without
compensation of any sort. Thus, we have no
hesitation to overrule the decisions in Velaxan
Kumar (supra) and Narmada Bachao Andolan
(supra), with regard to mode of taking possession.
We hold that drawing of Panchnama of taking
possession is the mode of taking possession in land
acquisition cases, thereupon land vests in the State
and any re-entry or retaining the possession
thereafter is unlawful and does not inure for
conferring benefits under section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013.
340.Before proceeding further, in our
opinion, Section 24 contemplates pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
proceedings and not the concluded ones in which
possession has been taken, and compensation has
been paid or deposited. Section 24 does not
provide an arm or tool to question the legality of
proceedings, which have been undertaken under
the Act of 1894 and stood concluded before five
years or more. It is only in cases where possession
has not been taken, nor compensation is paid, that
there is a lapse. In case possession has been taken,
and compensation has not been deposited with
respect to majority of landholdings, the beneficial
provision of the statute provides that all
beneficiaries shall be paid compensation as
admissible under the Act of 2013. The
beneficiaries, i.e., landowners contemplated under
the proviso to Section 24(2), are the ones who were
so recorded as beneficiaries as on the date of
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act
of 1894. 227 (2006) 3 SCC 286 The provision is
not meant to be invoked on the basis of void
transactions, and by the persons who have
purchased on the basis of power of attorney or
otherwise, they cannot claim the benefit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
under Section 24 as is apparent from proviso
to Section 24(2) and the decision in Shiv Kumar
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors228."
32. As stated supra, the entire acquisition proceedings have been
concluded and it cannot be reopen on the ground of the possession had not
been taken over in the manner known to law. In this regard it is relevant to
rely upon the same Judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., which held as
follows:-
"366.(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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of
law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioners.
That apart, the award has been passed in Award No.11 of 1986 on 23.09.1986
itself. Therefore, the petitioners 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 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.
34. The learned Senior counsel submitted that without prejudice to
the contention raised by the petitioners, the petitioners those who are not
received compensation, they are entitled for compensation under the New
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
Act. Considering the said submission, if any of the petitioners have not been
paid compensation, they are entitled to get compensation under the New Act.
35. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 is dismissed.
01.11.2021
(2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
rna
To
1.The Secretary to Government Tourism Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
No.2 Wallaja Road, Triplicane, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012 etc.,
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
rna
W.P.Nos.18002 to 18007 of 2012,
5191 to 5196 of 2013,
5228 to 5233 of 2013,
6122 to 6126 of 2013,
12180 to 12184 of 2013,
19647 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
