Madras High Court
P.Soundararaj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2022
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.13883 of 2019 & 18856 of 2022
W.P.No.13810 of 2019
1.P.Soundararaj
2.G.Rajendran
3.V.Sathishkumar
4.G.Dhamodaran
5.D.Balasundaram
6.V.Maheshgiri
7.V.Soundararaj
8.Soundarrajan
9.K.Chandrasekar
10.G.Ramasamy
11.N.Babu Rajendran .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd
L.L.A.Buiding
735, Anna Salai
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
Chennai – 600 002 .. Respondents
W.P.No.19564 of 2022
1.K.Muthukumar
2.P.Rajendra
3.T.Jayashankar
4.V.Soundararajan
5.G.Subramanian
6.S.Velusamy
7.R.Gunarajan
8.M.Santhamani
9.C.Sasikala .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Industries Department Fort St.George
Chennai 09
2.Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
Rep. by its Managing Director
No. 19-A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore Chennai 08
3.Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation
Rep. by its Managing Director Aavin
Illam, Nandanam Chennai 35
4.The District collector
Tiruppur District Tiruppur
5.The Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional officer
Tiruppur
6.The Thasildar
Udumalaipettai Taluk Tiruppur District
Formerly Spl. Thasildaar (Gypsum) Pollachi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
Taluk Coimbatore District .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.13810 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents or to treat the acquisition of the lands agricultural lands situtated
in of 136/1, 136/3, 152/2B and 153/2, 121, 150/2 and 151/2, 7/1 131/3b, 1/1,
6, 7/2 and 13/1 124/1 and 134B in Pudupalayam Village Udumalpet Taluk
Tiruppur District (formerly Coimbatore District) pursuant to Sec.4(1)
notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in
TamilNadu Government Gazette, dated 01.03.1972, Part-II-secion-1 , II-1
No.789, as lapsed by operation of Sec.24 of 2013 Central Act and
consequently to mutate the revenue records in respect of the lands by
replacingthe 3rd respondent with the names of the petitioners viz ., (i) Lands
situated in S.Nos.136/1, 136/3, 152/2 [now S.No.152/2B], 153 [now
S.No.153/2] in the name of the 1st petitioner; (ii) Lands situated in S.Nos.121
part, 150/2, 151/2 in the name of the petitioners 2 & 3; (iii) Lands situated in
S.No.7/ 1 in the name of the 4th petitioner; (iv) Lands situated in S.Nos.131/1
part [now S.No.131/1B] 131/3B in the name of the 5th petitioner; (v) Lands
situated in S.Nos.1 [now S.No.1/ 1], 6, 7/2, 13/1 in the name of the
petitioners 6 & 7; (vi) Lands situated in S.Nos.117/A2A [now
S.No.117/A2A], 117/A2C1 in the name of the 8th petitioner; (vii) Lands
situated in S.No.124/1 in the name of the 9th petitioner; (viii) Lands situated
in S.Nos.125 pt [now S.No.125/1], 126/B, 12/1 in the name of the 10th
petitioner; and (ix) Lands situated in S.No. 135 in the name of the 11th
petitioner, or, alternatively to re-convey to the petitioners the agricultural
lands situated in of 136/1, 136/3, 152/2B & 153/2, 121, 150/2 & 151/2, 7/1,
131/3b, 1/1, 6, 7/2 & and 134B in Pudupalayam Village, Udumalpet Taluk,
Coimbatore District (Now Tiruppur District) which were acquired from their
ancestors pursuant to sec.4(1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and published in TamilNadu Government Gazette, dated
01.03.1972, Part-II-secion-1 , II-1, No.789 , viz., (i) Lands situated in S.Nos.
136/1, 136/3, 152/2 [now S.No. 152/2B], 153 [now S.No.153/2] inthe name
of the 1st petitioner; (ii) Lands situated in S.Nos. 121 part, 150/2, 151/2 in
the name of the petitioners 2 & 3; (iii) Lands situated in S.No.7/1 in the name
of the 4th petitioner; (iv) Lands situated in S.Nos.131/1 part [now
S.No.131/1B] 131/3B in the name of the 5th petitioner; (v) Lands situated in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
S.Nos.1 [now S.No.1/1], 6, 7/2, 13/1 in the name of the petitioners 6 & 7;
(vi) Lands situated in S.Nos.117/A2A [now S.No.117/A2A], 117/A2C1 in
the name of the 8th petitioner;Lands situated in S.No.124/1 in the name of the
9th petitioner;Lands situated in S.Nos.125 pt [now S.No.125/1], 126/B, 12/1
in the name of the 10th petitioner; and (ix) Lands situated in S.No.135 in the
name of the 11th petitioner after receiving back the compensation if any paid
for acquisition of the said lands.
Prayer in W.P.No.19564 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to re-convey to the petitioners the agricultural lands situated in of
S.Nos. 121 123 134/A (now 134/A2) 125 (Now 125/1) 132/1A (now
132/1A2) 119/B 126/A 117/B1 and 132/2B in Pudupalayam Village
Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District (formerly Coimbatore District ) which
were acquired from their ancestors pursuant to sec 4(1) notification issued
under the land acquisition Act 1894 and published in Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 01.03.1972 part II Section 1 II-1 No. 789 Viz
(i) Lands situated in S.Nos. 121 part and 123 to the 1st petitioner (ii) Lands
situated in S.No. 134/A part (Now S.No. 134/A2) to the 2nd petitioner.
W.P.No.13810 of 2022
For petitioners : Mr.N.Subramanian
for Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish for R1 & R2
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.A.Sivaji for R3
W.P.No.19564 of 2022
For petitioners : Mr.N.Subramanian
for Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish for R1, R2 & R4 to R6
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.A.Sivaji for R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These petitions are heard together, as they involve similar set of facts
and this Order will govern them all.
2. The case of the petitioners are they are the owners of the agricultural
lands situated at Pudupalayam Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore
District. Their lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the
use of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation, Madras during the
year 1972 for the purpose of mining/extracting gypsum. For which,
notification under Sec.4(1) was issued on 01.03.1978 in
G.O.Ms.No.789/1972, after following the procedure awards were passed by
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation, Madras to an extent of
112..98 acres in the petitioners' village and patta was also issued in Patta
No.67. Further, after the formation of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation
Ltd,(herienafter referred to as 'TANCEM') the subject properties were
transferred from Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Madras to
TANCEM as per G.O.Ms.No.1224, Revenue Department dated 26.05.1981.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the TANCEM has relinquished the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
acquired land as the landds were not required by them for the purpose for
which it was acquired. Further, they are in the possession of the subject lands.
Hence, they made several representations to the respondents seeking re-
conveyance of their lands expressing their willingness to take back the
acquired lands. Therefore, they seek reconveyance under Section 48(B) of the
Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) as the lands are not acquired
for what is required. For substantiating the same, they relied on the
proceedings of the Additional Collector, Coimbatore dated 18.01.1996 in
Ref.No.12385/94/F2 directing the Tahsildar, Udumalpet to get the willingness
of the land owners to take back the lands. Since, the said representations are
pending without consideration. These writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the
lands are not utilised for the purpose on which it was acquired, under Section
48(B) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act), reconveyance
of the land to the original owners can be made. However, he fairly conceded
that though they received the compensation at the relevant point of time, even
then, they are still in possession of the acquired lands and the possession is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
not taken over by the respondents under the Act 1 of 1984, as such as per the
present enactment 30 of 2013, the acquisition initiated under the earlier
acquisition Act cannot be proceeded and shall deem to have been lapsed.
Hence, he prays to declare the said land acquisition proceedings have elapsed
under Section 24(2) of the above said (Act 2013).
4. Mr.A.Sivaji, the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Cements
Corporation Ltd would submit that the award amount was already deposited
in favour of the petitioners and the said amount was also received, however,
the physical possession could not be taken as they were unlawfully
encroached the lands belonging to the TANCEM by way of cultivation.
Hence, once award amount has been deposited before the Civil Court, 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
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.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
5. 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 award amount has been
deposited and disbursed in favour of the petitioners, 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 petitioners in the present writ petitions can not be
maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
dhk
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
2.The Secretary to Government
Industries Department
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd
L.L.A.Buiding
735, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002
2.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
No. 19-A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore Chennai 08
3.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation
Aavin Illam, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035
4.The District collector
Tiruppur District
Tiruppur
5.The Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional officer
Tiruppur
6.The Thasildar
Udumalaipettai Taluk Tiruppur District
Formerly Spl. Thasildaar (Gypsum) Pollachi
Taluk Coimbatore District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
dhk
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019
& 19564 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13810 of 2019 & 19564 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
