Madras High Court
Pattammal vs The District Collector on 23 June, 2022
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
And
W.M.P.No.14465 of 2016
Pattammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Perambalur District.
2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Perambalur,
Perambalur District. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of
the lands comprised in Survey Nos.582/5 measuring to an extent of
0.29.5 Hectares, Survey Nos.582/6 measuring to an extent of 0.39.5
Hectares and Survey Nos.582/7 measuring to an extent of 0.29.5
Hectares, situate at Keelakarai Village, Perambalur Taluk, then Trichy
District, now Perambalur District, deemed to have been lapsed as per
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
sub section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pradeep Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ
of Declaration to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the lands comprised in
Survey No.582/5 measuring to an extent of 0.29.5 Hectares, Survey
No.582/6 measuring to an extent of 0.39.5 Hectares and Survey
No.582/7 measuring to an extent of 0.29.5 Hectares, situate at
Keelakarai Village, Perambalur Taluk, then Trichy District, now
Perambalur District, deemed to have been lapsed as per sub section
(2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of
the subject properties and the same were sought to be acquired for
the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars and Notification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
under Section 4(1) of the Central Act 1 of 1984 was issued during the
year 1994. Thereafter notice under Form 3A was issued to the
petitioner, however, without any further notification, the petitioner's
lands were acquired and award was passed on 29.12.1995, however,
till date the compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that though award is alleged to have been passed as early as in the
year 1995, the possession has not been taken and compensation
amount was also not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the entire land
acquisition proceedings gets lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. Accordingly, he prayed for
allowing the writ petition.
4.The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, wherein, it
is stated that the Adi Dravidars of Vadakkumadevi hamlet of
Keelakkarai Village applied for house sites stating that they are living
in the existing natham in a congested manner with more than one
family in single house and on verification, it was found that 242
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
families are living in 125 houses. As per the yardstick provided by the
Government, an extent of 1.77.0 hectare of land was required for
providing a new colony for the above surplus family, whereas, there
was only an extent of 0.11.5 hectare Government Assessed waste dry
land and a further extent of 1.65.5 hectare of land had to be acquired.
Hence, land acquisition proceedings were initiated.
5.It is further stated in the counter affidavit that draft
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Central Act 1 of 1984 was
approved by the Government in G.O.3D No.947, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Department, dated 22.11.1994 and it was published in
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 14.12.1994. It was also published
in two Tamil Dailies 'Malaimalar' and 'Madurai Mani' on 15.12.1994 and
16.12.1994 respectively. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act
was conducted on 27.02.1995 after observing all the usual formalities.
The objections raised by the land owners including the petitioner were
found to be frivolous and hence, they were over – ruled and draft
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was recommended to the
Government on 15.05.1995 through the District Adi Dravidar Welfare
Officer, Tiruchirapalli.
6.It is further stated in the counter affidavit that before its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
approval by the Government, there was a Supreme Court's judgment
restoring the validity of the 'Tamil Nadu Acquisition of lands for Harijan
Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [Tamil Nadu Act 31/78] communicated by
the Government in G.O.Ms.No.143 dated 01.08.1995. Hence, as
contemplated under Section 22 of that Act which provides for taking
further action in all pending cases, under the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78 as
if Section 4(1) Notification already issued under the Central Act shall
be construed as a show cause notice served under Section 4(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 31/78, the 4(1) Notification under the later Act was
published in the District Gazette, Tiruchirapalli on 20.10.1995 and
Notice in Form 3 was issued to the land owners for the award enquiry
under Section 7(3) of the Act.
7.It is further stated in the counter affidavit that award was
passed on 29.12.1995. The compensation amount of Rs.77,205/- was
already deposited on 22.07.1997 at Sub-Treasury, but the petitioner
has not taken steps to withdraw the same from the deposit.
Possession was taken by the second respondent and name was
mutated in the revenue records and the same was allotted to Adi
Dravidar Family.
8.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
materials available on record.
9.The issued involved in the present case is no longer res
integra. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129 [Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Others], the relevant portion of which reads as
follows:
“366.3.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 2013 Act 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
10.Perusal of the decision cited supra makes it clear lapse of
land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act 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.
11.In the present case, respondents claim that award was
passed on 29.12.1995. The compensation amount of Rs.77,205/- was
already deposited on 22.07.1997 at Sub-Treasury, but the petitioner
has not taken steps to withdraw the same from the deposit.
Possession was taken by the second respondent and name was
mutated in the revenue records as Adi Dravidar Colony and the same
was allotted to Adi Dravidar Family. Hence, applying the ratio laid
down in the decision cited supra, the relief sought for in this writ
petition cannot be considered.
12.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner prayed that this Court may issue direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
respondents to re-validate the entire compensation amount and to
disburse the compensation amount to the petitioner within a
reasonable time frame.
13.Considering the request now made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to re-
validate the entire compensation amount, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to disburse
the compensation amount with interest as per Act to the petitioner,
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
14.With the above observations and directions, the writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.06.2022
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
To
1.The District Collector,
Perambalur District.
2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.16876 of 2016
And
W.M.P.No.14465 of 2016
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
