Madras High Court
G.Ponnurangam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 September, 2023
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.23009 of 2022
1.G.Ponnurangam
2.Subramani
3.Sabapathy
4.Perumal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruttani Revenue Division,
Thiruttani,
Thiruvallur District.
Page 1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
4.The Tahsildhar,
R.K.Pettai Taluk,
R.K.Pettai,
Thiruvallur District.
5.The Special Tahsildhar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar (ADW) Welfare Scheme,
Thiruttani,
Thiruvallur District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
[R6 suo motu impleaded vide
order dated 27.09.2023]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated against the petitioner's lands in S.No.107/2, 107/6 and
109/8 and 109/9, situated at Rajanagaram Village, R.K.Pettai Taluk,
Thiruvallur District in pursuant to the 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.3D
No.937, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 25.10.1991 and
consequential declaration under Section 6 issued in G.O.3D.No.646, Adi-
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 08.09.1992 issued by the 1 st
respondent are illegal, unconstitutional and lapsed virtue of Section 24(2) of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).
Page 2 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by
Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
A Writ of Declaration on hand has been instituted to declare that the
land acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioners' lands in Survey
Nos.107/2, 107/6, 109/8 and 109/9 situated at Rajanagaram Village,
R.K.Pettai Taluk, Thiruvallur District in pursuant to the 4 (1) Notification
issued in G.O.3D No.937, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
dated 25.10.1991 is null and void.
2.The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners of the subject
lands which were acquired by the Government under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act. As per the petitioners, an extent of 4.84 acres of land
in Survey Nos.107/2, 107/5 dry, 107/6, 107/7, 109/8, 109/9, 109/10A,
109/10B, 109/10C, 109/11 and 109/12 have been acquired for the purpose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
of providing free house sites to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
community people. The process of acquisition was concluded long back in
the year 1991 and the acquired lands were allotted in favour of the
Scheduled Caste community people and separate pattas were also granted to
the petitioners enabling them to construct residences for the purpose of
leading their livelihood.
3.The writ petitioners have earlier filed W.P.No.20728 of 2019
seeking direction to the respondents therein to allot alternative sites in favour
of the Scheduled Castes community people. This Court dismissed the writ
petition on 23.07.2021 stating that the writ petition has been filed in
malafide intention to stall the beneficiaries from taking over the land. There
is an observation in the order that the petitioners have not challenged the
land acquisition proceedings during the relevant point of time.
4.In view of the said observations, the petitioners have chosen to file
the present writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings of the year
1991 now after a lapse of about 31 years in the year 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
petitioners have no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings for about 31
years since no notice was issued to the original owners and they came to
know only in the year 2021 when the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.20728
of 2019 was filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended
that the owners have not received any notice as contemplated under the Act.
The possession was not taken from the petitioners and there was no
emergent circumstances for acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioners
for the purpose of converting the lands as house sites and to allot the same
for Scheduled Caste community people. It is further contended that under
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the period of five
years lapsed and possession has not been taken and therefore, the
acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been dropped and thus, the
petitioners are entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
6.In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge by this Court in
the case of K.Saraswathi and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its
Secretary to Government and others reported in (2021) 2 CTC 300,
wherein this Court discussed about the procedures for taking possession:
“16. A close reading of all the above portions
culled out from the judgment, clearly point out the fact
that drawing of Panchnama of taking possession is
the correct mode of taking possession in land
acquisition cases, more particularly where the
property acquired is a vacant land or a large tract of
land. Taking possession by adopting to this mode,
gives a lot of authencity to prove that the land has
been taken possession. Under the Transfer of
Property Act, in cases vacant land, possession always
follow title. However, in the land acquisition
proceedings, it works the other way round and here
the title vests with the State only after taking
possession. In other words, title follows possession.
This position is very clear on a bare reading of
Section 16 of the 1894 Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
38.Section 24(2) of the Act was brought into
force in order to meet those cases where the
authorities have failed, due to their inaction, to take
possession and to pay compensation for five years or
more before the 2013 Act came into force. The
Constitution Bench, in more than one lace
categorically states that Section 24(2) of the Act is a
penal provision to punish the Acquiring Authority for
its lethargy in not taking physical possession nor
paying the compensation after making the award five
years or more before the commencement of the 2013
Act. This observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has a lot of significance in the facts of the
present case. In the present case, the respondents
have not only shown recklessness when it came to not
taking possession in the manner known to law and not
paying/tendering compensation in the manner known
to law, but also it continues till date when they come
and tell this Court that the entire original records has
gone missing. Such an attitude on the part of the
respondents really requires penal consequences as
provided under Section 24(2) of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
7.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
State questioned the entertainability of the writ petition mainly on the
ground that the acquisition proceedings of the year 1991 has been
challenged now after a lapse of 31 years. The grounds raised by the
petitioners that they had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings are
incorrect. As per the counter affidavit, notice was served to the erstwhile
owners of the land. The procedures followed for acquiring the land has been
narrated in the Counter Affidavit filed by the District Collector, Thiruvallur,
and the details regarding the acquisition proceedings are as under:
“4..........an extent of 1.95.5 Hectare (4.84 Acres)
comprised in the following survey numbers in
Rajanagaram Village lying in the Pallipattu Taluk of
the erstwhile Chengalpattu M.G.R. District and now in
R.K.Pettai Taluk of Tiruvallur District were notified
under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the old Land
Acquisition Act 1894 in issue No.44C, Part-II, Section-
2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette published on
20.11.1991 at Page No.1 and 2 as per the G.O.(3D)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
No.987 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Dated:25.10.1991 for the provision of house sites to
Adi Dravidars of Rajanagaram Village.
Sl.No. Survey Classification Extent Extent Name of the
No. (in (in Acre) Pattadar
Hectors)
1. 107/1 Dry 0.17.0 0.42 Narayana Reddy
s/o.Poleyatha Reddy
2. 107/2 Dry 0.28.5 0.71 Munusamy Reddy
s/o.Muniappa Reddy
3. 107/5 Dry 0.10.0 0.25 Kuppusamy Reddy
s/o.Naria Reddy(1) Ellappa
reddy s/o. Muniappa Reddy (2)
Govinda reddy s/o. Virupatcha
reddy (3)
4. 107/6 Dry 0.26.0 0.64 Anjathammal
w/o.Anniappan
5. 107/7 Dry 0.20.0 0.49 Muruga Reddy(1), Subramaniya
Reddy(2), s/o.Naduandi Reddy
Ellapa Reddy s/o.Maniappa
Reddy (3), Kuppusamy Reddy
s/o. Nainatha Reddy (4),
Govinda Reddy s/o. Virupatcha
Reddy (5)
6. 109/8 Dry 0.14.0 0.34 Vazha.Subramani
s/o.Pallikoodathan(1)
Gangadhara Reddy
s/o. Masilamani(2)
7. 109/9 Dry 0.12.0 0.30 V.Deivanai
W/o. T.M.Elumalai
8. 109/10 Dry 0.13.5 0.38 Munisamy Reddy
A S/o.Muniappa Reddy
9. 109/10 Dry 0.08.5 0.21 Elumalai Reddy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
Sl.No. Survey Classification Extent Extent Name of the
No. (in (in Acre) Pattadar
Hectors)
B S/o.Munusamy Reddy
10. 109/10 Dry 0.03.5 0.09 Jayaraman
C S/o.Subba Reddy
11. 109/11 Dry 0.21.5 0.53 Subramani
s/o. Muthusamy Reddy (1)
Ponniyammal
W/o.Munusamy Reddy (2)
12. 109/12 Dry 0.21.0 0.53 Valliammal
W/o.Kuppusamy
Total 1.95.5 4.84
5..........the notices relating to 5(A) enquiry were
served to the land owners on 09.02.1992 and the same
was conducted on 25.02.1992 and 05.03.1992. In
order to acquire the above mentioned land, the Land
Acquiring Officer/Special Tahsildar, ADW, Tiruttani
has passed the order in the above enquiry vide his
proceedings Rc.No.1079/889/A, dated:07.03.1992 and
a copy of this orders were served to the land owners.
6..........the Draft Declaration under 6 of the
said act was published at page No.8 in issue No.39C,
Part-II -Section-2 of the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette (supplement) on 30.09.1992 as per G.O.(3D)
No.646 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
dated:08.09.1992. It was published in the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
Dailies of Dinathoothu and Kumari Murasu on
30.09.1992 and the same was published in the locality
on 07.11.1992. The Draft Direction under Section 7
of the said Act was published at Page No.2 of the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary0
issue No.105 Part-II Section-2 on 03.03.1993 as per
the Government Letter No.45520/LAII/92-
1/dated:27.11.1992.
7...........Award enquiry notices under Section 9
(3) and 10 of the Act were issued to the Pattadars on
03.03.1993 and an Award enquiry was conducted on
19.03.1993. The Land Acquiring Officer/Special
Tahsildar, (ADW), Tiruttani has passed an order in
the above enquiry vide Award No.16/92-93
(R.C.1079/88/A on 23.03.1993). The Notices under
Section 12(2) of the said Act were also issued to the
land owners on 23.03.1993 for receiving the
compensation amount. The total award amount of
compensation Rs.83693/- was ordered for paying
compensation to the land owners and the details are
furnished below:-
(i) Out of above said total amount, an amount of
Rs.22443/- was ordered for paying compensation to 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
land owners in Survey Number 109/8, 109/9, 109/10A,
109/10C and 109/11 and the balance amount of
Rs.61250/- was remitted at the Sub-Treasury,
Tiruthani on 29.03.1993 under Revenue Deposit as
per proceedings of the 5th respondent in RC.1079/88/A
dated:29.03.1993. A sum of Rs.8133/- relating to the
undisbursed compensation in respect of S.No.109/8
for an extent of 0.07.0 Hectare out of 0.14.0 Hectare
and S.No.109/9 for an extent of 0.12.0 was remitted
back at Sub-Treasury, Tiruttani on 27.09.1993. The
above said deposited amount of Rs.8133 was ordered
for paying compensation in S.No.109/8 for an extent
of 0.07.0 Hectare out of 0.14.0 Hectare and
S.No.109/9 for an extent of 0.12.0 on 21.10.1993 and
07.02.1994 respectively vide Rc.No.1079/88/A.
(ii) Out of the remitted amount of Rs.61250/- a
sum of Rs.14800/- was ordered for paying
compensation to the 3 land owners in Survey Numbers
109/10B, 109/11 and 109/12, vide Rc.No.1079/88/A
dated:30.04.1993.
(iii) Out of the remitted amount of Rs.61250/- a
sum of Rs.32268/- was ordered for paying
compensation to 7 land owners in Survey Numbers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
107/1, 107/2 (issued 0.53 ¼ cent out of out of 0.71
cents), 107/5, 107/7 and 109/8 as per the proceedings
of the 5th respondent in R.C.1079/88/A, dated
17.09.1993 and a sum of Rs.11131/- was ordered for
paying compensation to one Thiru.Subba Reddy, S/o
Munusamy Reddy for the land in survey number 107/6
as per proceedings of the 5th respondent in
RC.1079/98/A dated 29.03.1993. In continuation with
that a remaining amount Rs.3051/- in survey number
107/2 (issued 0.17 ¾ cent out of 0.71 cents) was
ordered for paying compensation vide
Rc.No.1079/88/A, dated:09.03.1994.
............ after completion of acquisition
proceedings, the possession of the acquired land was
done on 30.04.1993, 17.09.1993, 23.09.1993,
21.10.1993, 07.02.1994 and 09.03.1994. Thereafter,
the necessary house site patta have been issued to the
houseless people of Adi-Dravida.
8.Relying on the above details furnished by the District Collector,
Thiruvallur, in his counter affidavit, the learned Additional Advocate
General reiterated that the petitioners being influential persons in that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
locality are not allowing the beneficiaries to construct houses in the allotted
lands. The petitioners are physically preventing the beneficiaries who
belong to Scheduled Caste community despite the fact that free house site
patta had already been granted to all the beneficiaries by the competent
Authorities long back in the year 1992 itself. In this context, the Counter
Affidavit filed by the District Collector, reveals as under:
“9. ............., K.Damodaram and other villagers
have filed a complaint before the Hon'ble State
Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu with a prayer
to direct this respondent to survey and identify the
lands which were assigned to beneficiaries to enable
them to construct houses. The Hon'ble forum has
passed the order dated:10.05.2021, to take suitable
action to measure and identify the property in Survey
Nos.107/1 and 109/8 in Rajanagaram Village in
R.K.Pet Taluk in Tiruvallur District as per the
assignment patta for house sites given to the 100
beneficiaries in the year 1994 and 2002 and to allot
the same to the beneficiaries enabling them to
construct houses within three months from the date of
recommendation. It is further directed to pay
compensation of 25,000/- only to each of the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
100 assignment pattadars pertaining to the
Rajanagaram village in Survey Nos.107/1 and 109/8
to whom assignment patta given in the year 1994 and
2002, within one month from the date of receipt of
copy of the recommendation in the orders passed on
10.05.2021 made in Case No.8007 of 2019. In order
to comply the order of State Human Rights
Commission, Dated:10.05.2021 along with assistance
of police and revenue officials, the boundary stones
fixed in the lands of 100 beneficiaries on 02.06.2002.
In continuation with that about 500 pople of
Raganagaram Village have indulged in 'Road Roko'
and they have removed the fixed boundary stone. The
officials icluding a Tahsildar, R.K.Pet, Revenue
Inspector and Village Administrative Officer were
injured by the mob assault of the village people. It is
submitted that the 4 crime number including under
PCR Act, 1955 i.e., (1) the Crime No.156/2022 U/s
120(b), 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, 294 (b), 353,
506(ii) IPC, R/w 3(1)(g)(s) and
3(2)(va)SC/ST(POA)Act, 1989, (2) Crime
No.158/2022, U/s 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 353, 506(ii)
IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act 1998 and Section 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
of TNPPDL Act 1984 was registered on 24.06.2022
and the Crime No.159/2022 U/s 143, 147, 148, 188,
294(b), 323, 324, 353, 506(ii) IPC and (4) Crime
No.160/2022 U/s 143, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)
TNPPDL Act, 1984 was registered on 25.06.2022 in
R.K.Pet Police Station against the persons who were
involved in the activities of removing of boundary
stones and creating law and order issues. In which,
the accused's A1 to A3 namely Thiru.Vinayagam s/o
Ponnusamy (A1), Thiru.Kavikannan@Ekambaram s/o
Kanniyan (A2), Thiru.Jayaraman, s/o Narasimman
involved in crime No.156/2022 arrested and taken for
judicial custody on 24.06.2022 and the accused's
namely Thiru.Purusothaman s/o Ganesareddy,
Thiru.Kumar s/o Kannappa Reddy and
Thiru.Kamalakannan S/o Mani involved in Crime
Nos.156/2022, 158/2022, 159/2022 and 160/2022
arrested and taken for judicial custody on 02.07.2022
and they were released by conditional bail on
26.08.2022. Hence, this Writ petition ought to be
dismissed on the grounds that this exhibit the malafide
intention of the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
9.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that no notice was
issued to the owners. Possession has not been taken even today. The
petitioners have offered alternate lands for the occupation of the Scheduled
Community people. Therefore there is no reason to reject the claim of the
writ petitioners.
10.Regarding the possession, it is contented by the petitioners that no
physical possession has been taken and therefore the acquisition proceedings
has become lapsed.
11.In the context of the possession in acquisition proceedings, the
principles are ruled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and ors
reported in (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 496. The Apex Court held as follows:
“263.In Banda Developmend Authority this
Court held that preparing a panchnama is sufficient to
take possession. This Court has laid down thus:(SCC
p.411, para 37)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
“37. The principles which can be culled
out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down as to what act would constitute taking of
possession of the acquired land.
(ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act
of the State authority concerned to go to the spot and
prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as
sufficient to constitute taking of possession.
(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired
land or building/structure exists, mere going on the
spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be not
sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such
cases, they authority concerned will have to give
notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the
person who has cultivated the land and take
possession in the presence of independent witnesses
and get their signatures on the Pachnama. Of course,
refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure
may not lead to an inference that the possession of the
acquired land has not been taken.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not
give rise to new cause of action to question the legality
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section
24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforecement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners
to question the legality of mode of taking possession
to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of Court to
invalidate acquisition.”
12.The principles laid down by the Consititution Bench of the Apex
Court are reiterated by the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India
in the case of Land and Building Department Through Secretary & Anr.
v. Attro Devi & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302.
“11. The Constitution Bench of this Court in
Indore Development Authority's case (supra) had
opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions
namely either taking possession of the acquired land
or payment of compensation to the landowners would
be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed
in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Various
questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
Court were also answered. Relevant paraNos. 362 and
366 are extracted below:
“362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby
overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are
also overruled ...
....
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 112014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has
not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor”
or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then
there is no lapse.
12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession
of the land by the State after its acquisition" has also
been considered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority’s
case (supra). It is opined therein that after the
acquisition of land and passing of award, the land
vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The
vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any
person retaining the possession thereafter has to be
treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is
acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person
or police force to retain the possession and start
cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The
Government is also not supposed to start residing or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
physically occupying the same once process of the
acquisition is complete. If after the process of
acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free
from all encumbrances with possession, any person
retaining the land or any reentry made by any person
is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant
paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:
"244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that
possession of land may be taken by the State
Government after passing of an award and thereupon
land vest free from all encumbrances in the State
Government. Similar are the provisions made in the
case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word
"possession" has been used in the Act of 1894,
whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the
expression "physical possession" is used. It is
submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over
the possession is not enough when the actual physical
possession remained with the landowner and Section
24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken,
not the possession in any other form. When the State
has acquired the land and award has been passed,
land vests in the State Government free from all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the
State is with possession, any person retaining the
possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser
and has no right to possess the land which vests in the
State free from all encumbrances.
245. The question which arises whether there is any
difference between taking possession under the Act of
1894 and the expression "physical possession" used in
Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was
contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the
possession meant only physical possession of the land.
Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013
always amounted to taking over physical possession of
the land. When the State Government acquires land
and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession,
that amounts to taking the physical possession of the
land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise
which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to
put some other person or the police force in
possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the
land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been
acquired. The Government is not supposed to start
residing or to physically occupy it once possession has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for
obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any
further retaining of land or any reentry is made on the
land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or
starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be
the trespasser on land which in possession of the
State. The possession of trespasser always inures for
the benefit of the real owner that is the State
Government in the case. xxxx
256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with
possession and the statute has provided under
Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once
possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an
indefeasible right and vesting is with possession
thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16,
takes place after various steps, such as, notification
under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice
under Section 9, award under Section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of vesting of
property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to
be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests
in the State but all other encumbrances are also
removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
and the state becomes the absolute owner and in
possession of the property. Thereafter there is no
control of the landowner over the property. He cannot
have any animus to take the property and to control it.
Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise
trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by
the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of
trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the
owner ."
13.In view of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court of India and the subsequent Judgment reiterating the principles would
be sufficient enough to arrive at an inevitable conclusion that mere
occupation by the owner in respect of an acquired land cannot be construed
as possession is with the owner's. After acquisition, if any person including
the owners occupation is to be construed as unlawful occupation and they
are to be treated as trespassers. Once the land absolutely vest with the
Government, more specifically, in respect of vacant land and any person
claiming to be in possession cannot be considered as valid possession and
such persons if at all claims to be in possession, they are liable to be vacated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
and the lands are to be utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired
under the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If the grounds raised in
this regard is taken by the Courts, it will lead to an anomalous situation
where the Government may not be in a position to protect the acquired
vacant lands to a larger extent on some occasions. Every owner will claim
that they are in possession of the vacant land and therefore, the acquisition
proceedings become lapsed. Such principles are contrary to the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14.In the present case, though the petitioners say that they have not
received any notice in the year 1991 and they were not aware of the land
acquisition proceedings and first time they came to know about the land
acquisition proceedings in the year 2021, this Court earlier considered this
aspect in W.P.No.20728 in 2019 and dismissed the writ petition with a
finding that the writ petition itself has been filed with a malafide intention.
15.A doubt arises regarding the said ground in view of the fact that
the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.20728 of 2019 seeking the relief to direct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
the respondents to allot alternative sites in Survey No.122/3, Patta No.1600,
situated in the Rajanagaram Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruthani District.
When petitioners themselves have sought for relief to direct the respondents
to allot alternative sites, then one can presume that they were aware of the
land acquisition proceedings even before the filing of the said writ petition.
When they came to know that the subject lands are acquired, the writ
petition was filed. The counter affidavit filed by the District Collector reveals
that the notice was served to the erstwhile land owners. The details
regarding the enquiry was conducted and the procedures followed were
elaborately narrated by the District Collector, Thiruvallur in his Counter
Statement. However, now after a lapse of 31 years from the completion of
the acquisition proceedings such details need not be gone into as the
acquired lands were already allotted in favour of the homeless poor people
and free house site pattas were granted in the year 1992 itself and on
account of the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of the Counter affidavit at the
instance of the petitioners, the beneficiaries are unable to construct houses.
The allegations stated in the paragraph 9 of the Counter affidavit are serious.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
16.The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that
the petitioners are creating unnecessary trouble in that locality by preventing
the beneficiaries from constructing houses in the acquired lands. Complaint
was filed before the Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu. Criminal
criminal cases were also registered. Under these circumstances, question of
dropping the land acquisition proceedings does not arise at all.
17.It is the duty of the State to ensure that the livelihood of the
homeless poor people are protected by allowing them to construct the houses
in the lands allotted by the Government. The petitioners'suggestion to grant
alternate land at this length of time cannot be considered by this Court since
the acquisition proceedings were concluded in the year 1991 and free house
site patta was granted to the homeless Scheduled Caste Community people
in the year 1992 and therefore, the alternative relief sought for in the earlier
writ petition was dismissed by this Court with a finding that the petition
itself was filed with a malafide intention. Since there was an observation that
the acquisition proceedings were not challenged, the petitioners have chosen
to file the present writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings after
a lapse of 31 years from the year of completion of acquisition proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
In any event, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief.
18.Taking note of the submission made by the learned Additional
Advocate General that the petitioners are influential persons in that locality,
this Court is inclined to suo moto implead the Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur, who in turn shall provide necessary protection to the
beneficiaries of the acquired lands/pattadars, who in turn shall be permitted
to construct houses without causing any further delay. The respondents are
directed to assist the beneficiaries to occupy their respective portion of the
house sites allotted as per the Patta granted and give protection to those
Scheduled Castes community people to construct houses to lead their
livelihood in that locality.
19.With these direction, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.09.2023
veda/cse
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruttani Revenue Division,
Thiruttani,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Tahsildhar,
R.K.Pettai Taluk,
R.K.Pettai,
Thiruvallur District.
5.The Special Tahsildhar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar (ADW) Welfare Scheme,
Thiruttani,
Thiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
veda/cse
W.P.No.24047 of 2022
27.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
