Madras High Court
R.Abdul Halim vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2023
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
R.Abdul Halim .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Project,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29663 of 2017
dated 13.09.2021.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
For the Appellant : Ms.K.Abhirame
For the Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Addl. Government Pleader
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
: Mr.D.Veerasekaran
for respondent No.3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Ms.K.Abhirame, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Additional Government
Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and, Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned
counsel for the third respondent.
2. The present appellant had filed writ petition bearing
No.29663 of 2017 with a prayer that the acquisition of the writ land
under Award No.1 of 1995, dated 28.04.1995 has lapsed by virtue
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for brevity, “the Act of 2013”).
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge failed to consider that neither the compensation
amount is paid to the appellant, nor possession of the land was
taken by the respondents. In the light of that, sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is attracted and the acquisition stands
lapsed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129,
submits that both the conditions are not complied with. Neither the
amount is deposited with the Court, nor possession has been
obtained. In view of that, the acquisition stands lapsed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Single Judge did not refer to the factual aspects of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
matter. Even the respondents are not in a position to demonstrate
that possession was obtained by them from the appellant. It is also
a fact that, till the year 2017, the amount was not deposited in
Court.
7. We have considered the submissions.
8. It is not disputed that the appellant had filed a reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking
enhanced compensation contending that the amount of
compensation awarded is too low. The reference under Section 18
of the Act is allowed. The appellant is awarded enhanced
compensation amount.
9. Moreover, the appellant had earlier filed a writ petition
bearing No.27249 of 2003 with a specific prayer that the acquired
land is to be handed to the appellant. The District Revenue Officer
(Schemes), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, had filed a detailed counter-
affidavit, wherein he contended that the land owned by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
appellant is located in the middle of the lands already taken
possession by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the same are
intended for the purpose of implementing a comprehensive housing
scheme for the benefit of public at large. The prayer for handing
over the land back and for re-conveyance of the land has been
negatived by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ
petition filed by the appellant bearing No.27249 of 2003 under the
order dated 15.6.2012.
10. We have also perused the original file pertaining to the
land acquisition proceedings produced by the learned Additional
Government Pleader to demonstrate that the possession was handed
over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
11. The judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) would not enure to the benefit of the appellant. In the said
judgment, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that if
any one of the two conditions viz., (i) compensation is paid and/or
(ii) possession is taken, is satisfied, then the award would not lapse.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
In the present case, the possession was taken by the respondents.
The same is also recorded in the order passed in a writ petition filed
by the appellant earlier.
12. In the light of the above, no relief can be granted to the
appellant.
13. The writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17994 of 2023 is closed. The
original file pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings was
returned back to learned Additional Government Pleader.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
20.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Project,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
bbr
W.A.No.2111 of 2023
20.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
