The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tmt.Rajeswari Venkatesan (Died)
2023 Latest Caselaw 12882 Mad

                                                                          W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 21.09.2023

                                                     CORAM :

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                                       AND
                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI


                                           W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

                     1. The State of Tamil Nadu
                        rep.by its Commissioner & Secretary
                        Housing and Urban Development Department
                        Fort St.George
                        Chennai 600 009

                     2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
                        Neighbourhood Scheme
                        Ayyanthirumaligai
                        Salem 636 008                     ..     Appellants in both the W.A's

                                                          v.

                     1. Tmt.Rajeswari Venkatesan (Died)

                     2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director
                        Tamil Nadu Housing Board
                        No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
                        Chennai 600 035

                     3. The Executive Engineer and
                         Administrative Officer

                     ____________
                     Page 1 of 7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

                          Salem Housing Unit
                          Tamil Nadu Housing Board
                          Ayyanthirumaaligai
                          Salem 636 008

                     4. Thiru.Gnanasprakasam
                        S/o Rajeswari Venkatesan

                     5. Tmt.Amudhavalli
                        D/o Rajeswari Venkatesan

                     6. Tmt.Gayathri
                        D/o Rajeswari Venkatesan

                     7. Tmt.Vidyasree
                        D/o Rajeswari Venkatesan
                        (R4 to R7 substituted as LR's of
                         the deceased first respondent vide

order of Court dated 22.06.2023 in CMP.15143/2021 in WA.1610/2018 and order dated 21.09.2023 in CMP.15094/2021 in WA.1611/2018) .. Respondents in both the W.A's

Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the orders dated 27.04.2017 & 18.03.2016 made in W.P.No.14968 of 2016 & W.P.No.33402 of 2015, respectively.

For Appellants :: Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader

For Respondents :: R1-Died Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapaul Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 Batta with petn.due reg.R4 to R7 in WA.1610/2018

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)

These writ appeals are directed against the orders dated 27.04.2017

and 18.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.14968 of 2016 and 33402 of

2015, respectively. Since the first respondent herein died during the

pendency of the appeals, her legal representatives have been brought on

record as respondents 4 to 7 in the writ appeals.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

appellants, reiterating the grounds raised in the appeals, submitted that the

impugned orders are liable to be set aside, as the physical possession of the

lands were taken over on 22.08.1997 and 07.07.1997 respectively and the

compensation amount was also deposited in the Sub Court, Salem under

Sections 30 & 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 will not be

applicable to the present cases, since the appellants have satisfied the twin

contingencies enumerated under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

3. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents 2 & 3 and also perused the materials available on record.

4. It is not in dispute that the mother of the respondents 4 to 7 herein,

namely, Tmt.Rajeswari Venkatesan filed the above writ petitions seeking

for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the land acquisition

proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of

land bearing Survey Nos.241/4, 241/7, 241/8, 242/8A and Survey

No.241/6 respectively, at Jakkir Ammapalayam Village, Salem Taluk,

Salem District measuring 0.81.0 hectares and 0.47.0 hectares respectively,

covered by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.525, Housing and Urban Development Department

dated 25.05.1985 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 vide G.O.Ms.No.1408, Housing and Urban Development

Department dated 03.09.1986 are deemed to have lapsed in view of section

24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The writ Court, after hearing

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

the parties, accepting the contention of the writ petitioner that the award

amount came to be deposited before the Sub Court, Salem only on

28.11.2015, even though the award was passed as early as on 31.08.1988,

coupled with the categorical admission made by the appellants themselves

in the counter affidavit filed in the Contempt Petition No.2241 of 2015 that

the physical possession could not be taken over by the Land Acquisition

Officer, in the light of the settled legal principles, allowed the writ petitions.

We see no reason or grounds made out to interfere with the impugned

orders, as both the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-

Housing Board are not able to controvert their own statement/admission

made in the counter affidavit filed in the above contempt petition with

substantial material satisfying the twin contingencies that either the

possession was taken over or the award amount was deposited or paid in

time before the Act of 2013 came into force. In such circumstances, finding

no merits whatsoever, both the writ appeals shall stand dismissed, however,

with liberty to the appellants to proceed afresh, if they so choose, in

accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. Consequently,

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

C.M.P.Nos.12978 to 12981 of 2018 are also dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                                                          (D.K.K.,J.)        (P.B.B,J.)
                     Index : yes/no                                21.09.2023
                     Neutral citation : yes/no

                     ss


                     To

1. The Commissioner & Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neighbourhood Scheme Ayyanthirumaligai Salem 636 006

3. The Chairman Cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam Chennai 600 035

4. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Salem Housing Unit Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ayyanthirumaaligai Salem 636 008

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

AND P.B.BALAJI,J.

ss

W.A.Nos.1610 & 1611 of 2018

21.09.2023

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis