At The Instance Of The Learned ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 20257 Mad

                                                                            WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141
                                                                                       and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

                                            WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141
                                                and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

                G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, today this

matter has been posted under the caption “for being mentioned”.

2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners,

it is ordered that the 'counsel appearance' portion of the order dated 04.10.2021

in WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018 shall

read as follows:

For Petitioners in all WP's : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents in all WP's : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Government Advocate (for R1,3,5 to 8) : Mr.R.Ganesh Babu (for R2) : Mr.K.Magesh, Standing Counsel (for R4)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

4. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy in

WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018 dated

04.10.2021 after making necessary corrections.

28.10.2021 lok

WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141, and 13210 to 13214 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.15372, 15374 to 15377, 15442, 15444, 15446, 15448, 15450 and 15559 to 15567 of 2018

W.P.No.13081 of 2018

1. Lakshmi

2. Sayammal

3. Rukmani

4. Appusamy

5. Nagaraj

6. Ayyasamy

7. Subbathaal

8. Ayyammal

9. Kalimuthu

10. Mariappan

11. Rajeswari

12. Karuppusamy

13. Vijayakumar

14. Marimuthu

15. Selvaraj

16. Ilangeshwaran

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

17. Uma Sarasu

18. Ganesan

19. Iyammal

20. Kalamani

21. Jeevanandam

22. Vanitha

23. Saayammal

24. Selvi

25. Kaliyammal

26. vijaya

27. Jothimani

28. Kalimuthu ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

4. The Corporation of Coimbatore, Represented by its Commissioner, Office of the Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

5. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.

7. The Tahsildar, Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

8. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Coimbatore Water Supply Scheme, Coimbatore.

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the first respondent culminating in Award No.2/1986 dated 28.04.1986 passed by the 8th respondent in respect of lands comprised in Survey No.567 admeasuring about 6.10 acres and Survey No.568 admeasuring about 4.45 acres in Vellalur Village, Madhukkarai Taluk (then Coimbatore Taluk), Coimbatore District as lapsed by operation of law in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013.

                                                       For Petitioners
                                                       in all W.Ps                     : No Appearance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

For Respondents in all W.Ps. : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate (R-1, R-3, R-5 to R-8) : Mr.R.Ganesh Babu (for R-2) : Mr.K.Magesh Standing Counsel (for R-4)

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed to issue a writ of declaration,

declaring that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners'

properties as lapsed by virtue of 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).

2. The case of the petitioners is that they owned their respective

portion of the lands situated at Vellalur Village, Madhukkari Taluk,

Coimbatore District. While being so, the first respondent initiated acquisition

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

proceedings issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the purpose of

constructing a sewerage farm. However, even after a lapse of 30 years, the

respondents have not taken possession of the lands and they have not used the

said lands for the purpose for which they were acquired. Therefore, after the

New Act, the petitioners challenged the entire acquisition proceedings on the

ground that the possession of the subject properties had not been taken even till

today. The petitioners are not paid any compensation for the acquisition lands.

Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed as per Section 24(2)

of the New Act.

3. The respondents 1, 2 and 4th filed common counter affidavit and

stated that totally 657 acres of lands in Vellalore and Kurinchi Village of

Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District were acquired by the eighth respondent

herein for the purpose of sewerage Farm and construction sewerage Treatment

Plant to the Coimbatore Corporation. The work was administratively sanctioned

by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107, R.D & L.A Department, dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

23.01.1980. The entire extent acquired has been split up into 18 blocks for

submission of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the

awards had been passed on various dates and the compensation amount was

deposited in the Civil Court, most of the land owners were received the

compensation amount from the eighth respondent. The acquired lands were

handed over to the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board on

10.11.1986 and 06.12.1986 by the eighth respondent. The Tamil Nadu Water

Supply and Drainage Board, in turn handed over the possession to the

Coimbatore Corporation on 09.10.1988 and at present, the Coimbatore

Corporation is in possession of the entire lands and the Coimbatore Corporation

also obtained patta in their favour, vide patta No.700 and the Corporation is

enjoying the same. In fact, the Director of Town Panchayat requested the

Coimbatore Corporation to allot 2 acres of land in Survey No.659 for the

purpose of bu terminus to Vellalore Town Panchayat. As per Council resolution

No.19 dated 11.06.2014, the Coimbatore Corporation accorded permission for

allotment and the same was considered and granted by the first respondent in

G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 12.02.2016.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

4. All the petitioners raised grounds that they were neither paid any

compensation nor the possession of their respective properties was taken.

Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2)

of the New Act.

5. Heard Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents 1, 3 to 5 and Mr.R.Ganesh Babu, learned counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr.K.Magesh, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the fourth respondent.

6. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that admittedly, the Land

Acquisition Proceedings have been initiated by Section 4(1) notification dated

24.07.1981. Thereafter, proper enquiry was conducted and various awards have

been passed on various dates in respect of their lands comprised in various

survey numbers situated at Vellalur Village, Madhukkari Taluk, Coimbatore

District. As stated supra, the possession of the properties had already been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

taken by the Coimbatore Corporation, which had also obtained patta in their

favour, vide patta No.700 including the petitioners' lands. The awards had been

passed on various dates and the compensation amount was deposited in the

Civil Court and that most of the land owners have also received the

compensation amount from the eighth respondent.

7. The grounds raised by the petitioners in these 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

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.”

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of law

in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioners.

Admittedly, these Writ Petitions have been filed after 30 years of the

acquisition of the lands. The awards had been passed on various dates and the

possession of the acquired lands were also handed over to the Tamil Nadu

Water Supply and Drainage Board on 10.11.1986 and 06.12.1986 by the

Special Tahsildar (L.A). The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, in

turn, handed over the possession to the Coimbatore Corporation on 09.10.1988

itself. The compensation amount was also deposited in the Civil Court.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

and the compensation has not been paid/tendered/deposited in accordance with

law. In view of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, the issues raised by the petitioners were settled and therefore, the

acquisition proceedings had not 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 petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently,

the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

                                                                                                04.10.2021
                Internet : Yes / No
                Index      : Yes / No
                Speaking / Non Speaking order
                kv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

To

1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

4. The Corporation of Coimbatore, Represented by its Commissioner, Office of the Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore.

5. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.

7. The Tahsildar, Madukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

8. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Coimbatore Water Supply Scheme, Coimbatore.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv

W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.Nos.13081 to 13085, 13137 to 13141 and 13210 to 13214 of 2018

04.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/