Madras High Court
M/S. Deejay Enterprises Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 November, 2023
Author: P. Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
M/s. Deejay Enterprises Private Limited,
A company registered under Companies Act,
Represented by its Director Mr. David J Lobo,
Represented by its Power of Attorney Agent,
K. Sakthivel,
S/o. T. Kunchan,
Residing at A-76, SIPCOT Housing Colony,
Hosur – 635 126,
Krishnagiri District. ... Petitioner
(in W.P.21583 of 2017)
M/s. Deejay Enterprises Private Limited,
A company registered under Companies Act,
Represented by its Director Mr. David J Lobo,
Represented by its Power of Attorney Agent,
K.Muruganand,
S/o. S. Krishnamoorthy,
Residing at 86-A, Trichy Main Road,
Seelanayakkanpatti,
Salem- 636 201. ... Petitioner
(in W.P.21584 of 2017)
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban development Department,
Page No.1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
No. 493, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Bagalur Road,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme,
Bagalur Road,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
(in both Writ Petitions)
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration,
declaring that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of land to an extent of 1.57 acres and
0.56 acres comprised in Survey No. 438/1 and 438/2 respectively situated
at Chennathur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District covered by
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide
G.O. Ms. No. 753, Housing Department dated 30.04.1991 and published
in Part II, Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated
29.05.1991 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
published in Part II, Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary
dated 09.10.1992 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of
Page No.2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013.
Appearance in both cases:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Bharath Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. V. Veluchamy,
Additional Government Pleader (for R1 & R4)
: Mr. S. Ramachandran,
Standing Counsel for TNHB, (for R2 & R3)
ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking Writs of Declaration,
to declare that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the land of an extent of 1.57 acres
and 0.56 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 438/1 and 438/2 respectively,
situated at Chennathur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District,
covered by the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, vide in G.O.Ms.No.753, Housing and Urban Development,
Department dated 30.04.1991 and published in Part II, Section 2 of the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.05.1991 and to declare under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in Part II, Section 2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary, dated 09.10.1992, are deemed to
have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act,
2013.
2. The claim of the petitioners' is that the subject properties of
an extent of 1.57 acres and 0.56 acres comprised in S.Nos.438/1 &
438/2, respectively situated at Chennathur Village, originally belonged to
one Doddappa and two others, who have purchased the same under
registered Sale Deed, dated 28.05.1968. Thereafter, the same lands were
purchased by M/s.DEEJAY Hatcheries, a partnership firm. Thereafter, it
was conveyed to one M/s. Foods, Feeds and Fabrications, a partnership
firm by a Sale Deed dated 22.05.1980, and then it was renamed as
M/s.DEEJAY Enterprises Private Limited and they are the owner of the
subject properties. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued the
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in
G.O.Ms.No.753, Housing and Urban Development, Department dated
30.04.1991, for acquiring the subject property and the first respondent
issued notice under Section 6 of the Act, dated 09.10.1992. Though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
petitioner raised their objections, the Land Acquisition Officer, without
considering the same, passed an Award in Award No.26/94, dated
10.10.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a batch of Writ Petition in
W.P.Nos.6223, 6224 of 1994 etc., in which, an order of interim stay of
dispossesion alone was granted on 06.04.1994. The Writ Petitions were
disposed of by order dated 15.11.2001. Pursuant to the same, the Special
Tahsildhar has conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, on 10.01.2003. Overruling the objections raised by the
petitioners, again enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildhar and
the second Award passed in Award No.1/2005, dated 28.01.2005. Till
date, neither the compensation of Rs.2,53,235/- amount was paid nor it
was deposited before the Civil Court.
3. That apart, the entire Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated
under the Central Act, 1894, have lapsed, in veiw of Section 24(2) of the
New Act. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation dated
29.04.2015 to the Land Acquisition Officer, requesting him to issue “No
Objection Certificate” for transfer of Patta in favour the petitioners. The
Tahsildhar issued a “No Objection Certificate”, dated 25.05.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
However, when the petitioners tried to alienate the properties, the
proposed buyer has insisted for a proper order from the Government of
Tamil Nadu, certifying that there are no Land Acquisition proceedings
pending in respect of the said properties. Hence, the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
compensation has not been properly tendered and also has not been
deposited properly, either paying it directly or depositing it before the
Civil Court and the possession has also not been taken from the
petitioners, even after passing of the second Award.
5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the respondents have deposited the compensation at the Treasury and not
paid the entire compensation and they themselves admitted that not all
the amount was given to the petitioners concerned. Further, the
possession has also not been taken.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of
this Court that earlier this Court has also passed an order of interim stay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
of dispossesion alone. However, the respondents have admitted that they
are not in possession of the property, after the disposal of the Writ
Petition in W.P.Nos.6224 & 6225 of 1994, dated 15.11.2001 and till
then, the respondents have not taken possession. Though the said writ
petitions were disposed of on 15.11.2001 and from the said date, the
possession was not delivered. Therefore, according to the respondents,
the petitioners themselves have taken the possession from December
1994, since at the time, the order of interim stay of dispossesion was in
force. But, this would not have to be taken as the possession regained by
them in the month of December 1994. The petitioners only obtained
interim stay till the disposal of the said writ petitions.
7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that when once the Land Acquisition Act was amended,
Section 24 (c)(ii) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013,
(hereinafter “the Act”) which came into force in the month of January
2014, and since the amount was not either tendered / paid or deposited in
the Civil Court and the possession was also not taken before the said Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
and therefore, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board. Vs. M. Murugesan and two others., in W.A.No.1380 of 2018,
dated 10.08.2023, wherein, by referring to the Judgment of the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case
of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported
in (2020) 8 SCC 129, a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with
similar issue, wherein, after the land acquisition proceedings, the
compensation determined has not yet been deposited or not yet been paid
and possession was not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer.
9. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the compensation have to be properly tendered to the land
owners, who have refused to receive the compensation, in which case, the
amount has to be deposited before the Civil Court. Even mere depositing
into the Treasury would not also be acceptable and it cannot be treated as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
a proper tender. Therefore, in this case also, the deposit made by the
respondents before the Court into as “Civil Deposit” ought not to be
considered as deposit before the Civil Court.
10. Therefore, in this case also, though the Award was passed,
the same was not deposited as “Civil Deposit” before the Civil Court,
either it has to be paid to the land owner or deposited before the Civil
Court. Therefore, the compensation amount has not been paid in the
manner known to law and the possession has already been protected by
the interim stay granted by this Court and the said order of interim stay
was passed only till the disposal of the writ petitions, i.e., upto
15.11.2011, and therefore, the possession would not be considered to
have been taken.
11. More particularly, the respondents themselves have admitted
in Paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by them that except the
land of the subject properties involved in the present writ petitions, all
other lands have been utilized and the subject properties themselves have
been kept as “vacant”. Therefore, the possession has not yet been taken
and possession has not been utilized and the acquisition proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
stood lapsed.
12. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
2 & 3 (TNHB) submitted that the possession has already been taken by
the petitioners even in the year December 1994 and the amount has also
been deposited into the Treasury under the head “Civil Deposit”. Since
the amount has been paid even in the year 1995 itself, it means that the
possession has also been taken even thereafter in the year 1994. The
subject properties which are a larger extent are vacant lands and they
have been never handed over to the Housing Board and mutation has also
taken place, and no compensation is being paid, the Revenue Records
stands in the name of the Housing Board.
13. Since the writ petitions are pending, the subject properties of
the petitioners which are in the corner of the acquired lands alone, had
been kept as “vacant” and since the amount has already been paid
/deposited before the Treasury as “Civil Deposit” and possession has also
been taken and mutation has also taken place, the acquisition will not
stand lapsed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
14. I have perused the entire records in detail. It seems that in
one way or other the petitioners have challenged the acquisition
proceedings and filed the miscellaneous petitions in W.M.P.Nos.9680,
9682 & 9684 of 1994 initially and got an order of interim stay on
06.04.1994 itself and subsequently, at the time of disposal of the batch of
writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6223 to 6225 of 1994, etc., dated 15.11.2001,
the stay order came to an end. Now, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that only the possession of the petitioners has not
been taken, since there was an interim stay of dispossesion on the subject
properties from December 1994 till the disposal of the Writ Petitions on
15.11.2001. So, during that period, they would not have taken the
possession and even prior to that, the Court stayed in taking of
possession. But, the respondents have already taken the possession and
they have not informed to the Court that the Court had granted interim
stay.
15. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
(2020) 8 SCC 129, (stated supra), wherein, it was held that the
compensation deposited into the Treasury, is not a proper tender and the
Division Bench of this Court has followed the same in the case of The
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (cited supra).
Therefore, the deposit of compensation before the Treasury is not a
proper tender and the possession taken still continued with the writ
petitioners.
16. Further, the respondents have produced the documents to
show the deposit of the award amount in the year 1999 and the
compensation was deposited into the Treasury as civil deposit. Even in
the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Indore case,
it has been clearly stated that even if the amount came to be deposited
into the Court or otherwise, in Treasury, if permissible and though it was
properly deposited in Treasury, that would also a proper tender. So, the
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court, in the case of, N.Devanathan & 2 Ors., Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu and 4 Ors., in W.A.Nos.357 of 2022, etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
batch case, dated 31.01.2023, which says if the land owner refused the
compensation amount, it has to be deposited as personal deposit account
of the Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition, but, it was repealed,
therefore, the amount can be deposited into the Court or otherwise, in
Treasury, if permissible, whereas in this case, though the respondents
deposited the award amount in the Treasury in the year 1995 itself, the
entire compensation moved for further exception. It is to be noted that it
is only deposit under the head of “Civil Deposit”, and even the Indore
case, recognized the Treasury deposit if permissible. Therefore, the
Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not
applicable to the present case on hand and that it is the case on personal
deposit, whereas, in this case, it is a Civil Deposit and the records also
shows that it is a civil deposit.
17. Therefore, the records produced by the respondents shows
that the compensation has already been deposited before the Civil Court
as “Civil Deposit”. Therefore, this Court finds that the compensation has
already been tendered and deposited before the Civil Court as “Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
Deposit”.
18. As far as the possession is concerned, though there is an
order of interim stay of dispossession, but, it is not on record that the as
on that date, they have not taken the possession. Pending stay, they have
not taken the possession and subsequently, the mutation of Revenue
Records has also taken place and now, the Patta stands in the name of the
Housing Board. So far, the petitioners have not filed any contempt
petition. Even during the order of interim stay being in force, the
petitioners have taken the possession.
19. Except the subject matter lands, the other lands were
developed, pending the writ petitions, the subject matter lands in the
corner place are kept as “vacant”, since the respondents have taken
possession long back. Since the writ petitions are pending in respect of
the subject lands, the respondents have taken the entire larger extent and
not only the lands in question and the entire land also stands in the name
of Housing Board and the petitioners have also not challenged the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
20. Therefore, under the above circumstances, this Court finds
that due to the repeal of the old Act and the new Act coming into force,
and since the compensation has already been deposited and the
possession has also been taken, the acquisition proceedings shall not
stand lapsed. Under such circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
22.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
klt
To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban development Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No. 493, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Bagalur Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme, Bagalur Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21583 and 21584 of 2017
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
klt
W.P.No.21583 and 21584 of 2017
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
