Madras High Court
G.Rangasamy vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 9 November, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.9841 of 2021
G.Rangasamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Neighbourhood Scheme, Kovilpatti,
Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District,
Now Revenue District Officer,
Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi.
3.The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board, Tirunelveli Housing Unit,
Kamarajar Salai, Anbunagar,
Tirunelveli - 627 011. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the land acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents as “deemed to be lapsed” as per
Section 24 (2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect
of the property comprised in S.No.6/1B, Plot Nos. 20 and 21 of an extent
of 4158.13 Sq.feet, situated at Alampatti Village, Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Saravanan
For R1 and R2 :Ms.D.Farjana Ghousia
Special Government Pleader
For R3 :Mr.S.Velmurugan
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Mandamus
to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents to
have lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “RFCTLARR-Act, 2013).
2.The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the subject
property through a registered sale deed dated 26.06.1991 from one
Ramamurthy and another and this document was registered as Doc.No.
2015/1991. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the second and
third respondents and an award was also passed by the second respondent
on 18.11.1994. According to the petitioner, the award amount has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
been deposited and the possession and enjoyment of the property also
continue with the petitioner and as a result, acquisition proceedings itself
has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR-Act, 2013. It is
under these circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed before
this Court.
3.The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The
relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
5.It is respectfully submitted that on the request made by the 3rd
Respondent Board to acquire an extent of 16.06.5 hectares of lands
including the land of the Petitioner in S.No. 6/1B in Alampatti village,
Kovilpatti Taluk for the construction of houses for economically
weaker section, Lower income group, Middle income group and
Higher Income Group under neighbourhood scheme and hence an
extent of 16.06.5 hectares of land comprising in S.Nos. 2, 4, and 6 of
Alampatti village were acquired in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(Act 1 of 1894) in the year 1984. In this connection draft notification
under section 4(1) of the Act was approved by the Government in G.O.
Ms. No. 1262 Housing and Urban Development Department dated
20.09.1991 and published at page No. 25-28 of Draft Part II Section 2
(Supplement) of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.10.1991 as
Notification No. II (2)/HOU/5409/91. Declaration under section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act was approved and published in Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette as well as in local dailies. The Award Enquiry
was conducted and award passed in Award No.2/94 A 780/06 dated
18.11.1994. Since the persons interested did not receive the
compensation amount of Rs.65,703 was deposited at the Sub Court,
Kovilpatti as Court deposit. The possession of the lands covered under
acquisition was taken and handed over to the 3rd Respondent Board on
29.01.1994. Hence as per Section 12 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894,
entire land acquisition proceedings culminated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
6. It is respectfully submitted that on the request of the land
owners seeking for enhanced compensation, reference under section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was submitted and the Learned Sub
Court, Kovilpatti took cognizance of the 18 reference in L.A.O.P No.
63/1998 where the name of the Petitioner is found in Sl.No.118. The
Learned Land Acquisition Tribunal cum Sub Court, Kovilpatti passed
decreetal judgment in L.A.O.P No.63/1998 dated 03.08.2009. If the
Petitioner herein is aggrieved, he had every liberty to file appeal
before this Hon'ble Court and since he did not prefer any appeal, the
matter reached finality.”
4.Heard Mr.R.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghousia, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and
Mr.S.Velmurugan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent.
5.It is clear from the materials placed before this Court that the
acquisition proceedings were initiated as early in the year 1991 and the
award was passed in the year 1994 and it was also deposited before the
Sub Court, Kovilpatti. Thereafter, Section 18 reference was also made
and it was dealt with by the Sub Court, Kovilpatti in L.A.O.P.No.63 of
1998. The name of the petitioner is also found to be one of the claimants
in Sl.No.118. A judgment and decree has also been passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
L.A.O.P.No.63 of 1998.
6.For claiming a declaration that the acquisition is deemed to have
been lapsed, the petitioner has to satisfy both the requirements of
possession of the property not being taken over and compensation not
being paid to the petitioner. It is clear from the stand in the counter
affidavit that the compensation amount has been deposited and there was
also Section 18 reference made before the concerned Court and a decree
has also been passed in L.A.O.P.No.63 of 1998. Therefore, even
assuming that the possession is with the petitioner, the acquisition
proceedings cannot be held to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of
RFCTLARR-Act, 2013. In this regard, it will be useful to refer to the
Judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
Indore Development Authority vs Manohar Lal, reported in 2020 SCC
Online SC 316.
7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that till date, the
petitioner has not received any compensation and was not even able to
get the judgment and decree that was passed by the Sub Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
Kovilpatti. It is left open to the petitioner to make an appropriate
application before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti and seek for the certified
copy of the judgment and decree. It is also left open to the petitioner to
file an appropriate application before the concerned Court and seek for
the withdrawal of the amount/compensation that was deposited before
the Court. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed in
this Writ Petition.
8.This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 09.11.2023
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Neighbourhood Scheme, Kovilpatti,
Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District,
Now Revenue District Officer,
Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
cmr
W.P.(MD)No.12606 of 2021
09.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
