Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 October, 2021
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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
17. Uma Sarasu
18. Ganesan
19. Iyammal
20. Kalamani
21. Jeevanandam
22. Vanitha
23. Saayammal
24. Selvi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/14
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
administratively sanctioned by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107, R.D & L.A
Department, dated 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.
4. All the petitioners raised grounds that they were neither paid any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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
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/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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.
6. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
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/
W.P.No.13081of 2018 etc., batch
04.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
