Madras High Court
P.Pushpam vs / on 8 December, 2023
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
WP(MD)No.7192 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.7192 of 2021
P.Pushpam ...Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate Office,
Madurai.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit – II,
Madurai – 20. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release petitioner's land
in R.S.NO.50/5B acquired through the acquisition proceedings initiated by the
2nd respondent in the year 1991 by considering the petitioner's representation
dated 28.12.2020 with in a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
WP(MD)No.7192 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to declare the acquisition proceedings as
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as '2013 Act' for brevity) on the ground that the petitioner has neither
received the compensation amount nor has the possession been taken over by
the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is in possession and enjoyment of
the subject property by virtue of sale deed dated 16.12.1988 executed in favour
of the petitioner by one Alagappan. The acquisition proceedings were initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act' for
brevity). 4(1) notification was published in the gazette on 24.04.1991 and 5A
enquiry was convened on 18.06.1991. Thereafter, award enquiry was
conducted.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that no compensation amount was
paid neither was the possession taken over from the petitioner and therefore, the
petitioner sought for declaring the acquisition proceedings as lapsed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant
portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
4. I respectfully submit that the government approved
4(1) notification as per the Land Acquisition Act vide
G.O(3D)No.427, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
dated 27.03.1991. It was published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 24.04.1991. The relevant portion of
that, extracted as follows:
"Government, dry, S.No.50-5 B (part), belonging to
A.Alagappan, bounded on the North by S.No.50-13C, East by
S.No.49. South by S.No.50-5C and West by S.No.50-5 B (part) -
0.13.0 hectare.
Government, dry, S.No.50-C, belonging to A. Annammal,
M.Pandiyammal and C.Ponnammal, bounded on the North by
S.No.50-5B (part), East by S.No.49, South by S.No.50-15 and
West by S. No.0.5 - 5 B (part) – 0.27.0 hectare. Total - 0.40.0
hectare."
5. I respectfully submit that, 4(1) notification as per the
Act and subsequent dates and events of the proceedings are
furnished below:
1 Draft Notification approved on 27.03.1991
2 Published in the Tamil Nadu government 24.04.1991
Gazette on
3 Publication in Dailies – Theekathir and 26.04.1991
Kinnus
4 Publication in Madurai North Taluk Office, 30.04.1991
Madurai West Panchayat Union office and
Alanganallur Sub-Registrar Office on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 Notice in Form 3 issued and published on 30.04.1991
6 Substance of 4(1) notification published in 30.04.1991
the Locality on
7 Notice in Form 3A issued on 31.05.1991
8 Notice in Form 3A served on 01.06.1991
9 U/s 5A enquiry convened on 18.06.1991
The aforesaid 5A enquiry was conducted on 18.06.1991
in the Panchayat Board Office, Chinnapatty as scheduled after
the service of the notice. During the enquiry,
Thiru.A.Alagappan, the pattadar of S.No.50/5B had appeared
and told that he sold an extent of 0.05 cents to Tmt. Periyakkal
and another and 0.10 cents to Tmt.Pushpam, the Writ petitioner
herein through an unregistered document worth of Rs.2.50
stamp paper which is in violation of Stamp Duty and
Registration Act. Moreover, the objection raised by the land
owner was overruled.
6. I respectfully submit that the award enquiry was
conducted on 23.12.1992 as fixed after due service of notice
under section 9(1)10 and 9(3)10 of the said Act. The erstwhile
land owners did not appear. Consequently, the compensation
amount was deposited in the 1st Additional Subordinate Court,
Madurai U/s 30(2) of the said Act on 01.02.1993 and the same
was returned by the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai
on 23.12.1994 due to lapse of the validity of the cheques. The
proposal for revalidation of the cheques was sent to the
Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai on
04.03.1997 and the same was sent again on 23.03.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Survey No. Extent Amount of
(Hectare) Compensation
(Rupees)
01. 50/5B 0.13.0 18,809/-
02. 50/5C 0.27.0 40,095/-
Total Amount 58,904/-
5. Heard Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings itself has lapsed, since the
compensation amount was not paid and possession was also not taken over.
7. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner does not have any title to
the property, since an unregistered sale deed was executed in favour of the
petitioner. It was further submitted that the compensation amount that was
determined in the award proceedings was deposited before the First Additional
Sub Court, Madurai on 01.02.1993 and the same was returned on 23.12.1994
due to lapse of validity of the cheques. The learned Special Government
Pleader therefore submitted that the amount was deposited before the Court and
it was returned only on technical ground and that even though the possession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continues with the petitioner, the compensation amount has been deposited in
Court and therefore, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the possession
continues with the petitioner. The only other issue to be considered is as to
whether the compensation amount was tendered / deposited.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v.
Manohar Lal Sharma reported in 2020 SSCOnline SC 316 has held that the
acquisition proceedings will lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, only if
both the possession was not taken over and the compensation is also not paid.
With respect to the expression 'paid' that is found under section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court gave a detailed explanation and came to a
conclusion that where the compensation amount is tendered to the land owner
and he refuses to receive it, the compensation amount is deemed to have been
paid to the land owner.
10. Insofar as the deposit of the award amount in the Court, this Court
had an occasion to deal with the same in the judgment in K.Saraswathi &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2020 (2) WritLR 345.
This Court, after considering the entire scope of the 1894 Act and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development referred to supra,
came to a conclusion that it is mandatory to issue notice to the land owners after
an award is passed under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. If such a notice was
issued and inspite of the same, the award amount is not received by the land
owner or they refuse to receive the compensation, the land owner will not be
allowed to turn around at a later point of time and take the ground that the
compensation amount was not paid. However, if this notice was not issued, the
land owner will not know as to whether the compensation amount was
deposited. In such circumstances, the requirement 'paid / deposited' does not
get fulfilled.
11. In the instant case, even in the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent, it is seen that no notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the 1894
Act and the amount was not properly deposited before the Civil Court. Even
though initially compensation amount was deposited on 01.02.1993, it was
returned by civil Court and thereafter, it was never represented. Therefore, it
cannot be held that the compensation amount was deposited by the respondents
before the competent civil Court under Section 30(2) of the 1894 Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the compensation
amount was not paid / deposited and the possession was also not taken over and
therefore, the acquisition proceedings itself stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the
acquisition proceedings insofar as the lands belonging to the petitioner, stand
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. No costs.
08.12.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO:-
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate Office,
Madurai.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit – II,
Madurai – 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sm
Order made in
Dated:
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
