Madras High Court
Lalitha vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 March, 2022
W.A.No.703 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.703 of 2022
Lalitha .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Housing Department, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director / Convenor /
Committee for the Disposal of Board's Properties
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
3. The Public Information Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
4. The District Collector
Kancheepuram
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 14.09.2021 made in W.P.No.11329 of 2014.
For the Appellant : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
For the Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
for respondents 1 & 4
Dr.R.Gouri
for respondents 2 & 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
In this writ appeal, a challenge has been made to the order
dated 14.09.2021, whereby, the writ petition challenging the
acquisition of land and the award of Rs.1,50,502/- dated
28.04.1995 was not accepted.
2. The facts of the case shows that the appellant had
purchased a vacant site in plot No.22 in survey No.1225/4D and 9D
measuring 1300 sq.ft. by registered sale deed dated 16.04.1987.
The said land, apart from the other lands, were proposed to be
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Accordingly, a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Some of
the land owners had challenged the land acquisition proceedings by
maintaining a writ petition bearing No.16713 of 1993, but it was
dismissed. As far as the appellant is concerned, she received the
notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act of 1894 calling upon her
to appear for the award enquiry for fixing the compensation. The
award was then passed on 28.04.1995 awarding a sum of
Rs.1,50,502/- for the lands of the total extent of 38 cents.
3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge
was that she had not been paid the compensation till then. In fact,
she sent earlier objection on 10.07.1995 for reference under
Section 18 of the Act. The reference was not made and at the same
time, the award amount was neither deposited in the Court nor paid
to the appellant. The appellant was never tendered to receive the
amount of compensation as contemplated under Section 12(2) of
the Act.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
4. The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before this
Court for re-conveyance of the said land, wherein, a direction was
given to the first respondent to consider the application of the
appellant for re-conveyance. But, the same was rejected by an
order dated 18.10.2005. The appellant thereupon filed an
application under the Right to Information Act seeking information
regarding the details of compensation. Under the Right to
Information Act, it was informed that the amount had been
deposited in the Court after the initial deposit with the Revenue.
5. The appellant then filed a writ petition after the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, on the
ground that neither compensation has been paid to her nor the
possession of the land has been taken. The writ petition was
dismissed by the impugned order finding that the possession of the
land has already been taken by the respondents and at the same
time, the amount was deposited in the Court and therefore, a case
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
is not made out under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. Reference to the judgment cited by the appellant in
K.Saraswathi v. State of Tamil Nadu [2021 (2) CTC 300] was
given. However, now the issue is covered by the judgment of the
Apex court in the case of Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. It is otherwise a case that not
only the possession of the land was taken by the respondents, but
even the amount was deposited in the Court. Thus, both the
conditions as stipulated under the Act has been complied and
therefore, Section 24(2) would not attract, even if the judgment in
the case of Indore Development Authority is not applied.
7. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was duly
served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 to
receive the amount of compensation on 10.05.2995 itself. Despite
that, the appellant failed to collect the compensation and therefore,
initially it was deposited with the revenue. After the period of
deposit expired, the amount then was deposited in the Civil Court
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act of 1894.
Thus, the compliance of the provisions of the Act was made and the
appellant failed to prove his possession because the possession of
the land has already been taken to develop the colony.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause
interference with the order of the learned Single Judge as there is
no error in the order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
However, as prayed, the appellant is given liberty to collect the
amount of compensation so lying with the Civil Court and if an
application to this effect is made, the Court concerned would
immediately release the amount in favour of the appellant, if there
is no other objection by the land owners for the same property. It
would be with interest, if earned on deposit of the amount in the
Court. There will be no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
28.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Housing Department, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director / Convenor /
Committee for the Disposal of Board's Properties
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
3. The Public Information Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
4. The District Collector
Kancheepuram
Kancheepuram District.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.703 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
kpl
W.A.No.703 of 2022
28.03.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
