Madras High Court
P.Jaganathan vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 1 September, 2021
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
and
M.P. No.1 of 2014
P.Jaganathan ... Petitioner in
both WPs.
-Vs-
1. State rep. by its Secretary,
Housing & Urban Development Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.33, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Bhagalur Road,
Hosur 635 109.
4. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),
Hosur Housing Scheme,
Bhagalur Road,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents in
both WPs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
Prayer in W.P. No.1024 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent issued in Letter
No.24995/LA.2(2)/12-5 dated 01.08.2013 quash the same, consequently direct
the Respondents to exclude the Petitioners land bearing Plot No.2 in the layout
viz., Jayalakshmi Nagar, to an extent of 1870 sq.ft. Comprised in Survey No.
899/1, Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District from the Land Acquisition
Proceedings.
Prayer in W.P. No.1025 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 if the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of 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 in the layout viz., Jayalakshmi Nagar,
to an extent of 1870 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No. 899/1, Hosur Village and
Taluk, Krishnagiri District, covered by Notification issued under Section 4(1) of
Land Acquisition Act,1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.1342 Housing and Urban
Development Department dated 09.10.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 of
Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.885 dated 21.12.1992 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
in both WPs : Ms. Divyapreathika
For Respondents
in both WPs
For R1 & R4 : Mr. M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate.
For R2 & R3 : Dr.R.Gowri,
Standing Counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed to call for the records of the
first Respondent issued in Letter No.24995/LA.2(2)/12-5 dated 01.08.2013
quash the same, consequently direct the Respondents to exclude the Petitioners
land bearing Plot No.2 in the layout viz., Jayalakshmi Nagar, to an extent of
1870 sq.ft. Comprised in Survey No. 899/1, Hosur Village and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District, and to declare that the Land Acquisition Proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of land bearing Plot
No.2 in the layout viz., Jayalakshmi Nagar, to an extent of 1870 sq.ft. comprised
in Survey No. 899/1, Hosur Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, covered by
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act,1894 vide
G.O.Ms.No.1342 Housing and Urban Development Department dated
09.10.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide
G.O.Ms.No.885 dated 21.12.1992 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 (herein after called as “the new
Act”)
2. Heard Ms.Divyapreathika, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.M.R. Gokul Krishnan, learned Government Advocate appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
for the respondents 1 and 4 and Dr.R.Gowri, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 and 3 in both the writ petitions.
3. The Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition
proceedings on two grounds viz., the possession of the subject property has not
been taken over and the compensation was not paid till today. Originally, the
land comprised in survey Nos. 899/2 and 899/3 belonged to one Anjappa and
his brother Sudappa. They have developed the property and layout into house
plots in the name of ''Jayalakshmi Nagar''. The petitioner has purchased a house
plot ad-measuring 1870 sq.ft comprised in Survey No.899/1 situated at Hosur
Village and Taluk Krishnagiri District by the registered sale deed.
4. Thereafter, he came to understand about the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the first respondent by the Notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after called as “the Act”) vide
G.O.Ms.No.1342 Housing and Urban Development Department dated
09.10.1991, proposed to acquire the entire land to establish Neighborhood
Housing Scheme by the second respondent. In continuation of the said
notification, declaration has been issued under Section 6 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
5. According to the petitioner, no opportunity has been given to him to
raise his objection and he was not called for any enquiry. Further some of the
adjacent land owners filed Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.16881 of
1994 and 16882 of 1994, challenging the acquisition proceedings and the same
were allowed and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of some part of the
land had quashed. That apart, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the reason
that the entire acquisition proceedings have been lapsed on the grounds that he
was not paid compensation and also the possession of the subject property has
not been taken over.
6. On perusal of records produced by the second respondent revealed
that after notification, the enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act, was conducted
and the land owners had participated in the enquiry and only after that Section 6
declaration of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the award was passed on
21.12.1994 and the possession of the property was taken over on 22.02.1995.
The compensation of the award amount was also deposited in the Revenue
Deposit on 24.03.1997. After taking the possession of the respective lands, the
subject property was handed over to the second respondent and the patta copy
was also issued in their favour on 01.03.2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
7. Thereafter, the second respondent applied for DTCP approval and
the same was approved and the subject land was divided into house plots. In
fact, some of the house plots were sold out as such, the acquisition proceedings
were got over. After a period of 20 years, these Writ Petitions have been filed
challenging the land acquisition proceedings in view of the Section 24(2) of the
new Act. As stated supra, the respondents duly complies the provisions as
contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the entire Acquisition Proceedings have
not been lapsed in view of the new Act.
8. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner in these Writ
Petitions 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
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 legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
9. 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 subject land was acquired for the purpose of neighborhood housing scheme.
The award has been passed in Award No.29 of 1994 on 21.12.1994 itself and
the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject land was taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
over by the government and the possession was handed over to the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board. Further the requisition body also deposited the compensation as
Revenue Deposit on 24.03.1997 itself 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) 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.
10. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
01.09.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts/mn
To
1. The Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing & Urban Development Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.33, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Bhagalur Road,
Hosur 635 109.
4. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),
Hosur Housing Scheme,
Bhagalur Road,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
W.P. Nos.10294 & 10295 of 2014
and M.P. No.1 of 2014
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
