Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs K.Seethammal on 14 September, 2022
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1762 of 2017 and CMP.No.22344 of 2017
1. The Secretary to Government,
Backward & Most Backward and
Minority Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
RDO-Office Buildings,
Nagalapuram Road,
Tiruttani-631 209.
4. The Special Officer,
Adi Dravida Welfare,
RDO Office Building,
Tiruttani-631 209.
5. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Pallipattu Post,
Tiruvallur District. ... appellants
-vs-
1. K.Seethammal
2. K.K.Ponnusamy
3. K.K.Ramesh
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
4. K.K.Selvi
5. K.K.Lakshmi
6. K.K.Manimegalai ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order passed in W.P.No.14055/2015 dated 20.09.2017 by the learned
Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.Ramanlal, AAG
assisted by T.Arunkumar,
Govt. Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.N.Ramachandran
for Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6
Mr.N.Ravichandran for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the impugned order
dated 20.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.14055/2015 wherein the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for by the writ
petitioners/respondents herein holding clearly therein that the District
Collector has categorically admitted that since the land-in-question is
not required for the acquisition proceedings, the acquisition
proceedings can be recalled and the same could be also published in
the Government Gazette.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
2. Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted
by Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants argued that when the land-in-question to an extent of 3.11
acres in Old Survey No.127 and New Survey No.36/2, Athimanjeri
Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District was acquired by issuing
G.O.Ms.No.777, Social Welfare (BC III) Department dated 01.03.1982
by invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, an award also has
been passed on 25.03.1982. Aggrieved by the land acquisition
proceedings, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14055/2015 was filed taking
multiple grounds that a) the physical possession of the land has not
been taken; b) the compensation also has not been deposited in the
manner known to law; and c) The District Collector also has given a
recommendation that the land acquired was not required, therefore,
the acquisition proceedings can be recalled. Although a detailed
counter affidavit has been filed by the appellants herein making it clear
that the ground taken by the writ petitioners before the learned Single
Judge that the physical possession of the land has not been taken was
a false statement because the physical possession of the land has been
taken and the amount of compensation has been deposited in the
Government account, however, the learned Single Judge refusing to
accept the pleas made in the counter affidavit, allowed the writ
petition, overlooking the recommendation made by the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
Collector. Although the land-in-question was not required for the
purpose for which it was acquired and at the same time, the same land
can be utilized for some other purpose, the present writ appeal has
been filed.
3. Arguing further, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that when the land acquisition proceedings were challenged
by the owner and the other legal heirs by filing a civil suit
unsuccessfully, after a long lapse of time, the writ petition filed ought
not to have been entertained because the compensation amount was
remitted before the Sub-Court, Kanchipuram in the year 1982 and for
some defects indicated therein, although the same was returned for
want of certain compliances, the same was remitted into the
Government Account in the year 2004. In view of the continuous legal
battle between the parties on title, this vital aspect has been
completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set
aside. When there was a dispute between the land owners, in view of
the legal battle continuing between the parties on the ownership of the
land, the amount of compensation could not be deposited in the Sub-
Court, Kanchipuram, but the same was deposited in the Government
Account in the year 2004. Therefore, the question of lapse of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
acquisition proceedings does not arise. Resultantly, the application of
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also
cannot be applied in the present case.
4. Concluding his arguments, learned Additional Advocate
General contended that after the passing of the award dated
25.03.1982, in view of the title dispute between the parties, the
amount of compensation was deposited in the Government Account in
the year 2004 and thereafter, the physical possession of the land also
has been taken over by the Tahsildar. In view of the reason that the
physical possession of the land has been taken over from the land
owners and subsequently, the amount of compensation also has been
deposited in the Government Account in the year 2004, the land
acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be lapsed as the appellants
have complied with all the requisite criteria contemplated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents/writ petitioners 1, 2, 4 to 6 opposing the above
arguments submitted that when the 4(1) Notification was issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
seeking to acquire the land belonging to the writ petitioners to an
extent of 3.11 acres in Old Survey No.127 and New Survey No.36/2,
Athimanjeri Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District by invoking
Section 17 of the Act, as it is for the purpose of allotment of the house
sites to the beneficiaries belonging to Boyers, Navidhars and Dhobies,
an award also has been passed on 25.03.1982. As argued by the
learned Additional Advocate General, when the award dated
25.03.1982 was passed, it cannot be a paper award because the law
does not recognize passing of paper award. Passing of the award or
objections of the award ought to have been accompanied by depositing
of the amount of compensation that amount of compensation either
should be tendered physically before the land owners or in the
alternative, if there is any title dispute between the parties, it shall be
deposited as required under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1984. When it is an admitted case of the appellants herein that there
was a title dispute between the land owners, therefore, they were
unable to tender the amount of compensation to the land owners that
should have been deposited as per Section 30 of the Act before the
Sub-Court, Kanchipuram that has not been done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
6. In support of his submission soliciting our notice to
paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the
learned Single Judge, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners 1,
2 and 4 to 6 submitted that the appellants have also clearly admitted
in paragraph 4 that when the Acquisition Officer has remitted the
award amount of Rs.28,612/- by the proceedings of the award passed
in the above land acquisition proceedings under Sections 30 and 31(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, through bankers cheque for
depositing in the Sub-Court, Kanchipuram, but the Sub-Court,
Kanchipuram has returned the bankers cheque with due remarks on it
which was later on complied with. However, the counter affidavit
further says that due to efflux of time, the amount drawn for Court
Deposit on the above said land-in-question could not be paid and
remitted into the Government Account in 2004. Therefore, when the
appellants herein have admitted before the learned Single Judge in
their counter explicitly mentioning that they have not able to pay and
remit the amount of compensation into the Government Account in
2004, the learned Single Judge has no other option except to accept
the case of the writ petitioners. Therefore, based on the admitted
version made by the appellants before the learned Single Judge in
their counter as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition holding inter alia that the District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
Tiruvallur has made a recommendation to the Government to drop the
acquisition proceedings on the ground that there were no takers for
the reason that the lands were not suitable for use. Hence, it is clear
that the physical possession of the land-in-question has not been taken
over by the appellants, because either before the learned Single Judge
or before this Court, the appellants have not even placed any
documentary evidence to show that the physical possession has been
taken over by them.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to
6 further relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others reported in
(2020) 8 Supreme Court Cases 129 submitted that when the
appellants have not deposited the compensation amount either in the
Sub-Court, Kanchipuram or in the Government Account, then, the legal
fiction in respect of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 will come into play. Again taking support from an order
passed by this Court in the case of D.Balaraman vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government and others
reported in (2022) 2 MLJ 1 for the proposition that when the mode
of taking physical possession under 1894 Act is not complied with, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 by drawing inquest report/memorandum, the legal fiction
under Section 24(2) would make the land acquisition proceedings
lapsed once for all.
8. Mr.N.Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent
has adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6.
9. We also find merits on the findings given by the learned
Single Judge of this Court and also the argument advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6. The
reasons being that when the land-in-question to an extent of 3.11
acres in Old Survey No.127 and New Survey No.36/2, Athimanjeri
Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District was acquired invoking
Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of providing house sites to
Boyers, Navidhars and Dhobies, the law demands that an award has to
be passed by paying compensation to the land owners. Admittedly, in
the present case, the appellants, at no point of time have tendered the
amount of compensation after passing of the award. Secondly, a
perusal of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
herein in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge also clearly
speaks against the appellants that when the Land Acquisition Officer
has remitted the award amount of Rs.28,612/- by the proceedings in
the award passed under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1984, through bankers cheque for depositing in the Sub-Court,
Kanchipuram, the said Sub-Court has returned the same with due
remarks thereon. The relevant portion is given as under:
''4. In view of legal disputes on the acquired land, the
Acquisition Officer has remitted the Award amount
Rs.28612/- (28162+450) by the Proceedings of the Award
passed in the above land under Section 30, 31(2) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 through Bankers cheque for
depositing in the Sub-Court, Kanchipuram. But the Sub-
Court, Kanchipuram has returned the bankers cheque with
due remarks on it which was complied latter. Due to efflux
of time, the amount drawn for Court Deposit on the above
said land could not be paid and remitted into Government
account in 2004.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
A careful perusal of the above would clearly show that when the
Land Acquisition Officer has remitted the award amount of Rs.28,612/-
through the bankers cheque in the Sub-Court, Kanchipuram, the same
was returned with remarks made therein and due to the efflux of time,
the amount drawn for court deposit on the above said land could not
be paid, therefore, the same was remitted in the Government account
in the year 2004. But there is no evidence before this Court or before
the learned Single Judge to substantiate the said contention.
10. Thirdly, when the appellants claim that they have taken
physical possession of the land-in-question, in paragraph 366.7 of
Indore Development Authority case, the Supreme Court has laid down
the procedure to be followed which is also extracted here under:
''366.7 The mode of taking possession under the
1894 Act 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
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
Likewise, in similar and identical circumstance in the case of
D.Balaraman vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government and others reported in (2022) 2 MLJ 1
in paragraphs 10 and 11, this Court also (one of us being a party) has
held thus :
''10. Secondly, coming to Section 47 of the Act
which is also reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready
reference, shows that if the Collector is prevented from
taking physical possession of the land, he can enforce the
surrender of the land to himself by applying to a
Magistrate or to the Commissioner of Police. But in the
present case, it appears that no such measures have
been resorted to as per section 47 of the Act.
''47.Magistrate to enforce surrender :--If the
Collector is opposed or impeded in taking possession
under this Act of any land, he shall, if a Magistrate,
enforce the surrender of the land to himself, and, if not a
Magistrate, he shall apply to a Magistrate or (within the
towns of Calcutta*, Madras* and Bombay*) to the
Commissioner of Police and such Magistrate or
Commissioner (as the case may be shall enforce the
surrender of the land to the Collector.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
11. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the
latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others
(supra), wherein it is held in para 366.7 that the mode of
taking physical possession under the 1894 Act and as
contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
Inquest Report/Memorandum. As we have highlighted
above, when there was no such inquest report or
memorandum or panchanama prepared, we are unable to
agree with the approach adopted by the respondents in
taking physical possession of the land-in-question.''
Therefore, in the present case, there was no evidence placed
before us or before the learned Single Judge by any scrap of paper
that the physical possession of the land-in-question has been taken
over in the manner mentioned in paragraph 366.7 of Indore
Development Authority Case which states that the mode of taking
physical possession under Section 1894 Act would be by drawing a
inquest report or memorandum. It is also to be noted that although
the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants
stated before us that the writ petitioners have voluntarily surrendered
the land-in-question, but no evidence has been placed thereon also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
11. Now coming to the question of payment of compensation,
as we have indicated above, there was no any deposit made.
Fourthly, the learned Single Judge also in his order in paragraph 9 has
held thus:
''Admittedly, it has been categorically stated by the
District Collector/second respondent in the above extracted
portion that the land is not required and that the
acquisition proceedings can be recalled and the same could
be also published in the Government Gazette. As there is
specific statement by the District Collector and that the
land has not been acquired within a period of five years for
the purpose of which it has been acquired, the contention
of the respondents in the counter that the land is required
for a different purpose, in order to utilise the same to the
landless poor, cannot be accepted.''
Therefore, when the District Collector, Tiruvallur has made a
recommendation to the Government that the beneficiaries were also
not willing to receive the house sites for the reasons best known to
them, the District Collector, the 2nd respondent therein also has
recommended to drop the Land Acquisition Proceedings by recalling of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
the proceedings issued in respect of the land-in-question. Hence, in
our considered view, the learned Single Judge accepting the
categorical admission made by the District Collector that the land in
question acquired by issuance of 4(1) Notification cannot be used as
the beneficiaries are also not willing to accept the house sites, has
rightly held against the appellants herein. In view of the above, we
find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
12. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (P.D.A.J.,)
14.09.2022
tsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
T.RAJA, J.
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
tsi
W.A.No.1762 of 2017
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
