Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 April, 2022
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
M.P.1 of 2014
Selvaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Thasildar (LA),
Neighbourhood Scheme,
Namakkal
3.The Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai.
4.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Salem Housing Unit,
Ayyanthirumaligai, Salem - 8.
5.T.N.Swaminathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the Land Acquisition proceedings
commencing from Section 4(1) Notification, dated 04.01.1983 published in
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
the Gazette dated 26.01.1983 and Declaration under section 6 of the L.A.
Act in the Gazette dated 31.07.1985 bearing G.O.M.S.No.704, Housing and
Urban development, dated 18.07.1985, relating to 12 1/2 Cents of land
situated in Old Survey No.32/3B3, present Survey No.32/3B1B(part), at
No:73, Kondichetty Patti Village, Namakkal Taluk, and Namakkal District
and culminating in the Award No.3/87-88, dated 13.08.1987, as non est in
the eye of law.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Mathivanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja
Government Advocate
( for R.1 & R.2)
Mr.I.Sathish (for R.3 & R.4)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to issue a writ of
Declaration, to declare the Land Acquisition proceedings commencing from
Section 4(1) Notification, dated 04.01.1983 published in the Gazette dated
26.01.1983 and Declaration under section 6 of the L.A. Act in the Gazette
dated 31.07.1985 bearing G.O.M.S.No.704, Housing and Urban
development, dated 18.07.1985, relating to 12 1/2 Cents of land situated in
Old Survey No.32/3B3, present Survey No.32/3B1B(part), at No:73,
Kondichetty Patti Village, Namakkal Taluk, and Namakkal District and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
culminating in the Award No.3/87-88, dated 13.08.1987, as non est in the
eye of law.
2. Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate takes notice
for the respondents 1 & 2. In view of the limited relief sought for in this
petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing on
either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father is the owner
of the property comprised in Old Survey No.32/3B3, present Survey
No.32/3B1B (part), measuring an extent of 12 1/2 Cents, situated at No.73,
Kondichetty Patti Village, Namakkal Taluk and District. The said land was
acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Namakkal neighborhood
Scheme and the notification was issued in the year 1985 under
G.O.M.S.No.704, of Housing and urban development. Thereafter, the
petitioner's father challenged the said Land Acquisition Proceedings by filing
a writ petition in W.P.No.8014 of 1987, and the said writ petition was
dismissed by order passed by this Court on 17.08.1987. Aggrieved by the
same, he preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1484 of 1987 and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
also dismissed by order dated 06.09.1990 passed by this Court. Even after,
20 years the said land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was
acquired and the adjacent land which was acquired along with the above
said land was deleted from the above said Land Acquisition Proceedings and
reconveyed to the land owner. In order to avail such benefit the petitioner's
father made a representation on 07.10.2005 to the first respondent,
requesting them to delete the above said land from land acquisition
proceedings. However, the first respondent had not considered the said
representation. Hence, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.558 of 2006, for
issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of
the representation. This Court by order dated 15.03.2003, directed the first
respondent to dispose the representation within a period of six weeks. In
compliance with the order, the first respondent passed the orders on
04.12.2006, rejecting the petitioner father's representation. Challenging, the
said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.765 of 2008, this
Court by order dated 13.02.2013, dismissed the writ petition, against which
he preferred appeal in W.A.No.1575 of 2013 and the same was also
dismissed by this Court on 11.07.2017. Thereafter, on enquiry the petitioner
came to know that during the pendency of the writ petition the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
respondent sold the land to the fifth respondent by way of a Sale Deed dated
29.09.2012 vide Doc.No.4442, on the file of No.2, Joint Sub Registrar,
Namakkal. However, the third and fourth respondents have not informed the
same to the petitioner at the relevant point of time and thereafter, the
petitioner came to know that though an award was passed on 13.08.1987,
with regard to the above lands the compensation payable under the said
awards was neither paid to the petitioner nor deposited in the Civil Court as
required under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the
present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to declare the above said
land acquisition proceedings have elapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013('Act 2013').
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the compensation amount was not paid to the
petitioner nor deposited in the Civil Court. Hence, he prays to declare the
said land acquisition proceedings have elapsed under Section 24(2) of the
above said (Act 2013).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board submits that the land is taken over by the Government
and as per the Scheme sold to the various third parties including the fifth
respondent and once possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2). He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others
etc., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, wherein the relevant paragraph in the
above said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
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.”
7. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129, makes it clear that, once possession has been taken there
is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013('Act 2013'). Hence, the prayer sought by the petitioner in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
writ petition can not be maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri/mn
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Thasildar (LA),
Neighbourhood Scheme,
Namakkal
3.The Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
4.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Salem Housing Unit,
Ayyanthirumaligai, Salem - 8.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
tri/mn
W.P.No.25499 of 2014
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
