Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Murugesan on 10 August, 2023
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
and CMP.No.10884 of 2018
The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.33, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-35. .. Appellant
vs.
1.M.Murugesan
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme,
Hosur, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 03.09.2014 made in W.P.No.15807 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharathkumar for R1
Mr.R.Raja Rajeswari,
Government Advocate for R2 and R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Justice D.Krishnakumar, J.)
The Appellant Board is the respondent in the writ petition and they
aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court dated 03.09.2014 made in
W.P.No.15807 of 2014, in and by which the Writ Court has declared the land
acquisition proceedings as deemed to have been lapse in view of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [In short "Fair
Compensation Act"], has filed the instant writ appeal.
2. Facts of the case in brief is that the appellant Board had acquired
lands totally to an extent of 212.94 acres in Hosur Village, which includes the
land belonging to the first respondent / writ petitioner for the implementation
of Hosur Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Section 4(1) Notification and
Section 6 Declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [In short "Act
1894"] was issued on 30.01.1991 and 08.04.1992 respectively, followed by
an award in Award No.2 of 1994 dated 10.04.1994. According to the
appellant Board, the award amount was deposited to the Land Acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
Officer as per Board's Sanction order No.LA.II (4)/27198/92 dated
16.03.1994, vide Cheque No.3153127/28.03.1994.
3. While that being so, the first respondent had filed W.P.No.15807 of
2014 before this Court challenging the Section 4(1) Notice dated 30.01.1991,
Section 6 Declaration dated 08.04.1992 and the Award No.2 of 1994 dated
10.04.1994 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as deemed to have
been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act in
respect of his property in S.Nos.572/A and 575 to an extent of 1.38.5
Hectares in Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District. Accepting the contention of
the respondent/writ petitioner that the Award was passed as early as in the
year 1994 and neither the compensation amount was paid nor deposited in
the Court and further that the physical possession of the land is also vested
with the writ petitioner and therefore, by invoking Section 24(2) of the Fair
Compensation Act and following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014
(1) CTC 755], the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition. Challenging the
said order of the Writ Court, the present writ appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Board would
contend that Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 would come
into operation only in cases where the award under the Old Act had been
passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act and twin
conditions are satisfied by the appellant Board, namely possession was taken
and compensation amount has also been deposited. It is further contended
that Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 30.01.1991 and Section 6
Declaration was issued on 08.04.1992, followed by Award No.2 of 1994 and
the compensation amount was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer on
28.03.1994 and thus the acquisition proceedings had attained finality long
since 1994. It is further contended by the appellant Board that notices were
issued to the land owners and interested persons to appear for enquiry and
the property in question originally belonged to (1) R.Chowdayya Chetty, (2)
Basha Sahib, (3) Papanna and the award reflects that Thiru Chowdayya
Chetty had 3 wives and he died 5 years prior to the date of award and the
details of the legal heirs mentioned in the award are as follows:
(1) Tmt.Kamalamma, Chowdayya Chetty's third wife
(2) C.Munivenkatappa, Chowdayya Chetty's first wife only son
(3) C.Subramani, Chowdayya Chetty's third wife Kamalamma's son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
(4) C.Manohar, Chowdayya Chetty's third wife Kamalamma's son,
(5) C.Ramamani, Chowdayya Chetty's third wife's daughter,
(6) C.Vanajakshi, Chowdayyaa Chettay's third wife's daughter.
and during the Award enquiry, Tmt.Kamalamma, C.Subramani, C.Manohar
and C.Munivenkatappa had appeared and their statements were recorded and
therefore, it is clear that the first respondent/writ petitioner does not appear to
have any exclusive right to the lands in question and prayed for interference.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant Board also contended that
challenging the Section 4(1) Notification dated 30.01.1991,
Tmt.Kamalammal, Subramani and Manohar earlier had filed W.P.No.4076 of
2001 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated
18.04.2001. It is to be noted that the said Kamalammal is one of the family
members of the first respondent and she is having right over the property in
question. The first respondent earlier also had filed W.P.No.26450 of 2012
praying for reconveyance of the land in S.Nos.572A and 575 to an extent of
1.38.5 Hectares in Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District. The said writ petition
was dismissed, vide order dated 03.10.2012, by relying upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Leelawanti v. State of Haryana [AIR 2012 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
515] in a similar circumstance. Against which the first respondent had filed
W.A.No.977 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that
proceedings were already challenged before this Court in W.P.No.4076 of
1994 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed and the land acquisition
proceedings have become final. The Division Bench of this Court also
observed that irrespective of the fact that the acquired property is utilised or
not, the first respondent cannot rely upon Section 48(B) of the Old Act for
reconveyance of the property and it is only the discretion of the Government
and this Court cannot compel to exercise the discretion in a particular manner
and accordingly dismissed the writ appeal, vide judgment dated 17.06.2019.
6. This is the third round of litigation in respect of the very same land
acquisition proceedings wherein W.P.No.15807 of 2014 has been filed
seeking for declaration of the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and the Writ
Court has allowed the writ petition and challenging the same, the present writ
appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
7. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner vehemently
opposed that the appellant board has not taken physical possession of the
property in question and the compensation amount has not been paid to the
respondent and therefore, prayer that the entire land acquisition proceedings
is deemed to have been lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the Fair
Compensation Act, 2013.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
materials on record.
9. The point for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the first
respondent / writ petitioner is entitled for relief under Section 24(2) of the
Fair Compensation Act, 2013 on the ground that the appellant Board has not
satisfied the twin conditions viz., taking over possession and payment of
compensation.
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Board, the
possession of the property in question was taken over and handover to the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.27/93 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
25.04.1997 by the Special Tahsildar, Hosur. The Head Surveyor, Housing
Board has signed in the said Charge Transfer Certificate. The revenue
records namely Town Survey Register has been produced before this Court
wherein the lands in question stands in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and therefore, according to them, possession has already been taken
over by the appellant Board.
11. We have also gone through the original records submitted before
this Court by the appellant Board.
12. The first respondent earlier had filed W.P.No.26450 of 2012
praying for reconveyance of the land in question and in the said writ petition,
the first respondent has stated that the land acquisition proceedings were
initially challenged by Kamalammal and two others in W.P.No.4076 of 1994
and subsequently, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 18.04.2001.
In the said writ petition, Section 4(1) Notice and Section 6 Declaration were
challenged, but the Award passed by the appellant Board was not challenged.
In the said writ petition, he prayed for reconveyance of the land under
Section 48(B) of the Old Act and the said writ petition was dismissed holding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
that the first respondent is not entitled for reconveyance of the lands in
question by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Leelawanti v. State of Haryana [AIR 2012 SC 515].
13. Challenging the said order, the first respondent had filed
W.A.No.977 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench had dismissed the writ
appeal vide judgment dated 17.06.2019 holding that irrespective of the fact
that the acquired property is utilised or not, the appellant cannot rely upon
Section 48(B) of the Act for reconveying the property and the said order has
become final.
14. Be that as it may, the first respondent has filed the instant writ
petition in W.P.No.15807 of 2014 by contending that the appellant Board has
not paid compensation amount to the owners nor deposited the compensation
amount and further possession also vests with the writ petitioner and the writ
Court by relying upon the decisions in Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014 (1) CTC 755] and Sudha & Others v.
The Government of Tamil Nadu [CDJ 2014 MHC 1895] has allowed the
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
15. We have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the appellant
Board in the instant writ petition, wherein it has been stated that award notice
has been served to the landowners and interested persons and they appeared
for enquiry and their objections were recorded. The details of the legal heirs
are also mentioned in the award and therefore, they had entire knowledge of
the award proceedings and the appellant Board has also tendered the
compensation amount to the first respondent. Again the present writ petition
has been filed before this Court claiming that the first respondent is entitled
to relief under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, since the
appellant Board has not satisfied the twin conditions.
16. The appellant Board has produced the Charge Transfer Certificate
in Na.ka.27/93 dated 25.04.1997 wherein the Special Tahsildar, Hosur had
handed over possession of the land acquired to the Senior Revenue Inspector
and the same has been signed by the Head Surveyor Officer, Tamil Nadu
Housing Board. Therefore, we cannot brush aside the contention of the
appellant Board that the property in question has been handed over to the
appellant Board. Even assuming that according to the first respondent, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
are in possession of the property in question, it is a vacant land with no
superstructure and the revenue records stands in the name of the appellant
Board. That apart, the writ petitioner/first respondent was unsuccessful in
the first round of litigation and in the second round of litigation in
W.P.No.26450 of 2012, he sought for reconveyance of the land in question
under Section 48(B) of the Act and the revenue records produced before this
Court revealed that the property stands in the name of the appellant Board as
per the Town Survey Register and therefore, it is evident that the first
respondent is not in possession of the property in question.
17. The Writ Court, while allowing the writ petition has relied upon the
judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case (cited supra), however the
said judgment was subsequently overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharal and Others, wherein the Apex
Court has held as under:
"343. By and large, concluded cases are being
questioned by way of invoking the provisions contained in
Section 24. In our considered opinion, the legality of concluded
cases cannot be questioned under the guise of Section 24(2) as
it does not envisage or confer any such right to question the
proceedings and the acquisitions have been concluded long
back, or in several rounds of litigation as mentioned above,
rights of the parties have been settled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
........
366.9.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 2013 Act
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."
18. In a latest decision in Land and Building Department through
Secretary and another v. Attro Devi & Others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
13. It is also a fact to be noticed and taken care of that
large chunk of land is acquired for planned development to take
care of immediate need and also keep buffer for future
requirements. Such portion of land may be lying vacant also. As
has been observed in Indore Development Authority’s case
(supra) by this Court, the State agencies are not supposed to put
police force to protect possession of the land taken after process
of acquisition is complete. As far as the case in hand is
concerned, the land even if was lying 5 vacant, is required now
for a project of national importance for construction of the
DelhiSaharanpur-Dehradun Highway starting from Akshardham
Junction to Delhi/UP Border, in the State of Delhi in Phase-I of
Bharatmala Pariyojana.
14. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been
noticed in the impugned order passed by the High Court, the
possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition
Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority.
Report of possession proceedings dated 06.12.2012 has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
been placed on record. Hence, one of the conditions being
satisfied, we need not examine any other argument.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case (supra), in our opinion the order
passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained and the
same is accordingly set aside. However, the respondents shall be
entitled to receive compensation as per their entitlement. The
Land Acquisition Officer should also take steps to pay the same
to the rightful owner."
In the case on hand, admittedly, the respondent/ writ petitioner earlier had
filed W.P.No.26450 of 2012 praying for reconveyance of the land in question,
which amply proved that the possession was already taken over and
therefore, the appellant Board has satisfied one of the twin conditions and as
such, the respondent / writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief under
Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority case.
20. The first respondent / writ petitioner has earlier challenged the land
acquisition proceedings before this court and was unsuccessful and the writ
appeal filed there against was also dismissed and the entire acquisition
proceedings were concluded long back. In the light of the decision in Indore
Development Authority case, the respondent / writ petitioner is not entitled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
to any relief under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and as
such, the contention of the first respondent is legally unsustainable and
therefore, the order of the Writ Court warrants interference.
21. In the light of the reasons assigned above, the Writ Appeal stands
allowed and the order of the Writ Court dated 03.09.2014 passed in
W.P.No.15807 of 2014 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
[D.K.K., J.] [P.B.B., J.]
10.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Industries,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Salem -636 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
3.Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Government of India,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110 011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
Jvm
W.A.No.1380 of 2018
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
