Madras High Court
D.Krishnaveni vs The Commissioner & Secretary on 25 January, 2022
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.33811 and 33815 of 2019
D.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.33349 of 2019
S.Renugadevi ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.33354of 2019
Vs
1. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing,
Sathunachari, Vellore – 9.
3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep by its Chairman,
493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents in both W.Ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
Prayer in W.P.No.33349 of 2019: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to release the land, plot No.2, situated in Survey No.214,
Alamelu Mangapuram Village, Sub Registration of Vellore and to release the
same in favour of the petitioner.
Prayer in W.P.No.33354 of 2019: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to release the land, plot No.4, situated in Survey No.214,
Alamelu Mangapuram Village, Sub Registration of Vellore and to release the
same in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner
in both W.Ps : Mr.J.James
For Respondents : Mr.G.Ameedius
in both W.Ps Government Advocate
(for R1 & R2)
: Mr.S.Vanchinathan
Standing Counsel (for R3)
COMMON ORDER
Both the Writ Petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
direct to the respondents to release the land, plot Nos.2 and 4, situated in
Survey No.214, Alamelu Mangapuram Village, Sub Registration of Vellore
and to release the same in favour of the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
2. The petitioners owned the properties ad-measuring an extent of
2503 and 2912 sq.ft bearing Plot Nos.2 and 4 comprised in Survey No.214,
situated at Alamelu Mangapuram Village, Vellore. While that being so, the
third respondent proposed to acquire the subject lands for implementation of
Housing Scheme in and around the Vellore City in a phased manner.
Accordingly, the Government has approved a Notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short), vide G.O.Ms.685, Housing and Urban Development Department,
dated 29.08.1984, of an extent of 9.64.7 hectares, including the subject
lands. It was published in the Government Gazette on 19.06.1984. As per
Section 55(1) and Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act, notices were
served on the notified persons and the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act
was conducted from 23.09.1985 to 25.09.1985. The petitioners participated
in the said enquiry. Thereafter, the draft Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act was approved by the Government, vide G.O.M.No.1041, Housing and
Urban Development Department, dated 14.07.1986. It was published in the
Government Gazette on 15.07.1986. After duly serving notices under
Sections 9(1) and 3 of the Act, the award enquiry was conducted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
Land Acquisition Officer and Award was also passed on 12.07.1988 in
Award No.3 of 1988. Thereafter, the subject lands had been taken over and
handed over to the third respondent by the second respondent on
13.10.1988. The entire award amount of Rs.77,478.00 was deposited on
10.06.1988, vide State Bank of India Cheque No.121813, dated 29.5.1998
before the Sub Court, Vellore, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act.
Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have not lapsed as contemplated
under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. That apart, the
acquisition proceedings had already been challenged in W.P.No.15108 of
1995 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 25.07.2001.
Aggrieved by the same, it is stated that no appeal was preferred by the
petitioners.
3. Heard Mr.J.James, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.G.Ameedius, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and
second respondents and Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
4. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners in both the
Writ Petitions, 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., in which, it was 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
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 by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
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
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
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
herein. That apart, the subject lands had been taken over and handed over to
the third respondent by the second respondent on 13.10.1988. The entire
award amount of Rs.77,478.00 was deposited on 10.06.1988, vide State
Bank of India Cheque No.121813, dated 29.5.1998 before the Sub Court,
Vellore, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. 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 above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, the issues raised by the petitioners herein are settled and therefore, the
acquisition proceedings had not 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. In view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
settled position of law, both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and hence
they are liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
25.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
To
1. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing,
Sathunachari, Vellore – 9.
3. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.33349 and 33354 of 2015
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
