Madras High Court
C. Subramaniam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2021
WP.No.19936 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.09.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.19936 of 2017 and
WMP.No.21503 of 2017
1. C. Subramaniam
2. T. Kannammal
3. P. Malliga
4. Minor P. Subasree,
Rep. by her mother P. Malliga.
5. R. Soundari ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. District Collector,
Erode District,
District Collectorate,
Perundurai Road,
Erode – 638 001.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
3. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Divisional Office,
Brough Road,
Erode 638 001.
4. Chairman cum Managing Director,
SIPCOT, 19, a Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 08. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the state of
Tamil Nadu of the lands in survey number 260/4 extent of 1.01.5 hectares
situate that Perundurai village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District for
industrial purposes as being lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents either
to reconvey the land or pay compensation to the petitioners by fixing the
market value of the land as on this day.
For Petitioners : Mr.Kumaresh Baby
for Mr.V.Balamurugane
For Respondents
For R1 to 3 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mrs. Sudarshana Sunder
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that
the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 by the state of Tamil Nadu of the lands in survey number 260/4 extent
of 1.01.5 hectares situate that Perundurai village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode
District for industrial purposes as being lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the
respondents either to reconvey the land or pay compensation to the
petitioners by fixing the market value of the land as on this day.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the land comprised in survey
No.260/4 to an extent of 1.01.5 hectares situated at Perundurai, Erode was
acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of establishing an industrial
estate under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
On 15.07.1992, notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued proposing
to acquire the lands. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
09.10.1992. On 11.08.1995, declaration under Section 6 was published. An
award enquiry was conducted and award was passed in Award No.2 of 1995
on 11.08.1995. As per the award, sum of Rs.1,41,816.32/- was awarded for
the land to the petitioners. The said amount was directed to be deposited in
the Referral Court as per Section 31 (2) of the Act, as it was impossible for
them to apportion the amount to the legal heirs and sought to refer the
matter for apportionment as per Section 30 of the Act. It is also curious to
note that the original land owners already challenged the acquisition
proceedings in WP.No.17125 of 1995 and the same was dismissed. The
only grievance of the petitioners is that they were not able to find the
proceedings in respect of their lands and they sent application under Right
to Information Act seeking details in respect of their property. Therefore,
they challenged the acquisition proceedings under the net Act i.e. The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Admittedly, already the acquisition proceedings were challenged
and negatived by this Court. The grounds raised by the petitioners in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
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 proceedings or mode of deposit
of compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.”
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of
law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
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. 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.
5. The only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that whether the award amount has been deposited or not. However, the
learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the award amount
has been deposited as early as on 25.05.2000 in the Bank of Baroda.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
6.Therefore, if at all any delay in deposit, the petitioners are entitled
for interest as envisaged under Section 34 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
08.09.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
lok/drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.19936 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok/drm
To
1. Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Industries Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. District Collector,
Erode District,
District Collectorate,
Perundurai Road,
Erode – 638 001.
3. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Divisional Office,
Brough Road,
Erode 638 001.
4. Chairman cum Managing Director,
SIPCOT, 19, a Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 08.
WP.No.19936 of 2017 and
WMP.No.21503 of 2017
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
