Madras High Court
R.Venugopalan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 September, 2021
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
R.Venugopalan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Housing Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Unit) I
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Planning,
Chennai – 600 035.
4. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
[R-4 impleaded vide order dated 21.09.2021 made in
M.P.No.2/2014 in W.P.No.24350/2014]. .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/13
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
Award No.1/95 dated 28.04.1995, passed by the third respondent, in so far as
the petitioner's land is concerned viz., Plot No.19 & 20, comprised in Survey
Nos.1225/4B, 9B &10B, measuring 2840 sq.ft. in Konneri Kuppam
(Sivakanchi), Kancheepuram Taluk and District and to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to put the petitioner into possession of the
property within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Government Advocate
(for R-1, to R-3)
: Mr.S.Vanchinathan
Standing Counsel (for R-4)
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash Award No.1 of 95 dated
28.04.1995, passed by the third respondent, insofar as the petitioner's land is
concerned viz., Plot Nos.19 & 20, comprised in Survey Nos.1225/4B, 9B and
10B situated at Konneri Kuppam (Sivakanchi), Kancheepuram Taluk and
District to an extent of 2840 sq.ft. and consequently, direct the respondents to
put the petitioner into possession of the property within a time frame to be
stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased vacant house site in
Plot Nos.19 & 20, comprised in Survey Nos.1225/4B, 9B and 10B situated at
Konneri Kuppam, Kancheepuram Taluk and District to an extent of 2840 sq.ft.
by the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1987. The Government of Tamil Nadu
proposed to acquire the subject lands for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In this
respect, the Special Tashildar (Land Acquisition), Unit-I Tamil Nadu Housing
Board Scheme, Nandanam, Chennai-35 was appointed as Officer under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) and G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development (HBS)
Department, dated 05.02.1992 was issued in that regard. The declaration under
Section 6 of the Act, was published in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban
Development Department, dated 26.04.1993. Further, some of the land owners
had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.16713 of 1993 and
the same was dismissed by this Court. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he
received notice on 15.03.1995 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, calling
upon the petitioner to appear for award-enquiry for fixing compensation and
passing of an award. The award was passed in Award No.1 of 1995 on
28.04.1995. Accordingly, the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,50,502/- for total
extent of 38 cents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not been
paid any compensation till today. In fact, he has also sent his objections on
10.07.1995 for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the
compensation. However, the award amount has neither been deposited in the
Competent Court nor paid to the petitioner. After passing the award, the
petitioner was never tendered to receive the compensation as contemplated
under Section 12(2) of the Act. The petitioner also filed a Writ Petition before
this Court for re-conveyance of the said lands and this Court directed the first
respondent to consider his application for re-conveyance. However, the same
was rejected by an order dated 18.10.2005. The petitioner filed an application
under Right to Information Act seeking information with regard to the details
of compensation. On receipt of the same, the petitioner was informed that the
compensation amount was deposited in the Treasury as early as on 24.01.1997
and the revenue deposit had also expired on 31.03.2001 and by the
communication dated 11.10.2007, they renewed the lapsed compensation
amount. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed,
in view of the proviso to 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). In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
this Court reported in 2021 (2) CTC 300 (K.Saraswathi -vs- State of Tamil
Nadu).
“16. A close reading of all the above portions culled out
from the judgment, clearly point out the fact that drawing of
Panchnama of taking possession is the correct mode of taking
possession in land acquisition cases, more particularly where
the property acquired is a vacant land or a large tract of land.
Taking possession by adopting to this mode, gives a lot of
authenticity to prove that the land has been taken possession.
Under the Transfer of Property Act, in cases of vacant land,
possession always follow title. However, in the land
acquisition proceedings, it works the other way round and
here the title vests with the State only after taking possession.
In other words, title follows possession. This position is very
clear on a bare reading of Section 16 of the 1894 Act.
29. It is clear from the above judgments that it is the
duty of the Collector to make payment by issuing proper
notice to the concerned land owner and calling him to receive
the compensation amount. Unless this crucial step is followed,
the land owner may not even know whether it was deposited
and if so, when the amount was deposited. Even if a notified
person or his representative participates in the Award
proceedings, that will not amount to a presumption that he has
the notice of the compensation amount being readily available
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
for payment. That is why Section 12[2] of the 1894 Act
specifically mandates issuance of such notice. If the notice is
issued and thereafter, the land owner refuses to receive the
compensation or does not come to the specified place to
receive the compensation and the compensation amount gets
deposited in a Treasury account or the Court, as the case may
be, the land owner cannot be permitted to turn around at a
later point of time and complain that the compensation
amount was not tendered/paid to him.
30. In the facts of the present case, the deposit made in
the Court on 04.06.2000 by the Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme Unit 1, Coimbatore, does not amount to a
valid tender/payment of Compensation. This finding is given
not by finding fault in the procedure adopted in the deposit of
amount in the Court, but based on the most crucial fact that
there was no notice issued to the Landowners after the Award
Proceedings, under Section 12(2) of the 1897 Act and
therefore, there was no valid tender/payment of the
compensation to the Landowners. The Judgments cited supra
and the Judgment of the Constitution Bench clearly supports
this finding on the issue of valid tender/payment of
Compensation.
37. Section 24(2) of the Act provides for a deemed lapse
of the entire Acquisition proceedings where the conditions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
stipulated therein are fulfilled. Such a deemed lapse happens
by operation of law. In other words, it does not require a
specific declaration by the Court to declare that the
Acquisition proceedings has become bad unless the situation
warrants. The Statute has created such a provision
contemplating deemed lapse on the coming into force of the
2013 Act where the conditions stipulated under Section 24(2)
of the Act are fulfilled, viz., not taking possession and non
payment of Compensation. In the present case, this Court has
already held that the possession has not been taken and
Compensation has not been paid in the manner known to law.
At the risk of repetition, this Court again reiterates that this
Court is not trying to pin point some mistakes committed by
the authorities while taking possession or paying/tendering
Compensation. This Court is holding that the possession,
which has to be taken in a particular mode and the payment of
Compensation, which has to be tendered/deposited in a
particular mode, has not been done in the facts of the present
case and therefore, there is no taking of possession and
payment/tendering of Compensation in the eye of law.
Therefore, the deeming provision under Section 24(2) of the
Act automatically comes into play in favour of Petitioners by
operation of law.”
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
submitted that the fourth respondent filed counter affidavit stating that after
notice to the petitioner, the award has been passed on 28.04.1995 in Award
No.1 of 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was duly tendered to receive the
compensation as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act on 10.05.1995
and the same was duly served on the petitioner herein. Even then, the
petitioner failed to come and collect the compensation and as such, the
respondents made a revenue deposit on 24.01.1997 itself. Since the revenue
deposit was expired on 31.03.2001, it was renewed by the communication
dated 11.10.2007. Thereafter, the award amount was deposited in the Civil
Court deposit as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, the award amount has been deposited before the Sub Court,
Kanchipuram. Insofar as the possession has been taken over as early as on
26.07.1996 and thereafter, the possession has been handed over to the Housing
Board on 28.02.2002. Thereafter, the entire revenue records have been mutated
in the name of the Housing Board.
5. Heard Mr.S.Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
to third respondents and Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
6. As stated supra, initially the respondents made revenue deposit as
early as on 24.01.1997 itself. That apart, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.23778 of 2005 to consider his request for re-conveyance of the lands
and this Court directed the first respondent to consider the request of the
petitioner. The request of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated
18.10.2005 for the reason that after awarding the award amount, the same has
been deposited in the revenue deposit and thereafter, deposited in the Court.
The petitioner also failed to file any objections for reference under Section 18
of the Act. The subject lands are located in the middle of the lands already
acquired and the possession has been taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
and the lands are essentially required for forming the comprehensive housing
scheme. Therefore, they are not inclined to invoke the provisions under
Section 48-B of the Act.
7. Admittedly, the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. After
a period of 9 years, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the
very acquisition proceedings under the provisions 24(2) of the New Act, as if
the entire land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed for non payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
compensation and not taking of the possession of the property. Therefore, the
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the
case on hand.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Housing Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Unit) I
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Planning,
Chennai – 600 035.
4. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.24350 of 2014
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
