Madras High Court
K.Mohan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2021
WP.No.6462 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.09.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.6462 of 2016 and
WMP.No.5744 of 2016
1.K.Mohan
2.M.Subramani ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition),
Muthampalayam Housing Scheme,
Erode Housing Unit,
Brough Road,
Erode 638 001
3.The Executive Engineer,
Erode Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Surampatti Naal Road,
Erode 638 001 ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings
in respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.476/5 of Erode "C"" Village
(Kasipalayam), Erode Taluk, Erode District, measuring to an extent of
0.79.0 hectare as having 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.S.Saravanan
For Respondents
For R1 & 2 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.I.Sathish,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of declaration
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the property
comprised in S.F.No.476/5 of Erode "C"" Village (Kasipalayam), Erode
Taluk, Erode District, measuring to an extent of 0.79.0 hectare as having
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
2. Heard, Mr.S.Saravanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2, and Mr.I.Sathish, Standing Counsel appearing for the
third respondent.
3. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings on
second round. The acquisition proceedings was initiated under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the land comprised in
SF.No.476/5 of Erode "C"Village (Kasipalayam), Erode Taluk, Erode
District measuring to an extent of 0.79.0 hectare, which belonged to the
petitioners for the purpose of constructing houses and house sites by issuing
notification dated 27.05.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act and declaration dated 31.03.1993 under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Thereafter, award was passed on 03.08.1984 in Award
No.5 of 1994. The petitioner already filed writ petition in WP.No.12442 of
1994 and obtained order of stay and as such the compensation amount has
been deposited before the civil court as contemplated under Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act. After lapse of 25 years, the present writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
has been filed after the new act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 came into force.
4. The grounds raised by the petitioners in this 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in
the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
5. 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 acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject
land was taken over by the government and the same was handed over to the
requisition body. Further the requisition body also deposited the
compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the
petitioners failed to satisfy the twin requirements under Section 24 (2) of the
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
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.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
07.09.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.6462 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition),
Muthampalayam Housing Scheme,
Erode Housing Unit,
Brough Road,
Erode 638 001
3.The Executive Engineer,
Erode Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Surampatti Naal Road,
Erode 638 001
WP.No.6462 of 2016
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
