Madras High Court
N.Soundiramourty vs The Union Of India on 21 April, 2022
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
N.Soundiramourty
Heriditary Trustee - (Maniom),
Chouldrie de Nagamoutou Chetty,
No.79, Main Road, Opp., to Police Station,
Kirumampakkam,
Puducherry-607 402. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
Department of Revenue & Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The National Highways Authority of India,
G5 & 6, Sector -10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075.
4. The Under Secretary to Government,
(Union Territories - Puducherry),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in
acquiring the properties of the petitioner's trust by way of award No.3/1997
dated 03.02.1997 as having lapsed and illegal and unconstitutional and
consequently directing the respondents to maintain all the revenue records in
the name of the institution of Chouldrie de Nagamoutou Chetty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kamalakumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran, AGP Puducherry, for R1 & R2
Mr.A.K.Sachindhar
for M/s. P.Wilson Associates, for R3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of
Declaration, to declare the action of the respondents in acquiring the
properties of the petitioner's trust by way of award No.3/1997 dated
03.02.1997 as having lapsed and consequently direct the respondents to
maintain all the revenue records in the name of the institution of Chouldrie
de Nagamoutou Chetty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the lands comprised in
S.Nos.88/10, 98/3B, 100/1B, 102/1-102/5 and 103, situated at Pillayar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
Kuppam Revenue Village, Bahour Taluk, Puducherry were originally
dedicated to religious purposes by the petitioner's forefather namely
Nagamuthu Chettiar. Whileso, the Land acquisition proceedings for the
purpose of extension of East Coast Road were initiated in the year 1994 and
the above said lands of the petitioner's trust were also decided to be acquired
for the same. Further, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'Act') was issued on 12.11.1994, vide
G.O.Ms.No.79 and the Declaration under section 6 of the said Act was
issued, vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 07.02.1995. Thereafter, the award in
Award No.3 of 1997 was passed on 03.02.1997 and the Land Acquisition
Officer has also took the possession of the above said properties, however,
till date, the compensation amount was not paid. Hence, the present Writ
petition is filed, challenging the said acquisition proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the land
acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1994 and the same was
concluded in the year 1997, however, till date, the petitioner's trust was not
paid with the compensation for the lands acquired. Hence, the entire
proceedings stands lapsed as per the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the lands were acquired for the purpose of
extension of East Coast Road after following the procedure contemplated in
the said Act and the award in Award No.3 of 1997 was passed on
03.02.1997 and the possession of the above said properties was taken over
on 19.09.1995 and handed over to the National Highways Division(Public
Works Department) of Government of Puducherry. Further, the petitioner
has filed this Writ petition after a lapse of 18 years, however, the lands were
acquired and the road was laid and the compensation amount was deposited
in the competent Civil Court as per Section 31 of the said Act. While such
being the case, the petitioner being filed this Writ petition after a lapse of 18
years makes it suspicious. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ
petition.
5. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
6. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the above
said lands of the petitioner trust was acquired for the purpose of extension of
East Coast Road and the award in Award No.3 of 1997 was passed on
03.02.1997 and the possession of the above said properties was taken over
on 19.09.1995. Further, 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
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
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
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 for by the petitioner in the
present writ petition cannot be maintainable.
8. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
To
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
Department of Revenue & Disaster Management,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. The National Highways Authority of India,
G5 & 6, Sector -10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075.
4. The Under Secretary to Government,
(Union Territories - Puducherry),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
skt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
W.P.No.33766 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
