Madras High Court
V.Jayalakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 February, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
W.P.No.3327 of 02017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.02.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.3327 of 2017
--
V.Jayalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
3. The Executive Officer,
Villupuram Housing Board Division,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Villupuram.
4. The Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Officer,
Housing Board Scheme,
Cuddalore-1 .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the lands in
S.No.29/1, Velichamandalam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, measuring a total extent
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
W.P.No.3327 of 02017
of 0.45.5 Acre 1 and 13 cents, as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).
For petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan
For respondents: Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Addl.G.P. for RR-1 & 4
Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Kalaichelvan, Standing Counsel for TNHB for RR-2 and 3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a
Writ of Declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the lands in S.No.29/1,
Velichamandalam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, measuring a total extent of 0.45.5
Acre 1 and 13 cents, as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking aid of Section 24(2) of the said Act 30
of 2013, as Award has not been passed and the possession also has not been
taken. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire land acquisition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
proceedings would stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the said Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the adjacent
owner has earlier filed Writ Petition, but however, this petitioner's land belongs
to her husband in S.No.29/1 for the Panchayat of an extent of 0.45.5 Acre 1 and
13 cents and that no Award has been passed and that the possession has also
not been taken. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate
her stand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the third
respondent has sent a communication that so far as S.No.29/1 is concerned,
they have not deposited the amount of compensation. They have also not paid
the amount of compensation and therefore, since the amount of compensation is
not paid and possession was also not taken, the entire land acquisition
proceedings would get lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the said Act 30 of 2013.
5. Learned Senior Counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, submitted that since the original
owner refused to receive the amount of compensation, the same was directed to
be deposited in Court. Already, the possession has been taken even when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
earlier Writ Petition was filed by the son of the writ petitioner and the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board has clearly stated that, with regard to taking over of
possession, the same was not challenged by the son of the petitioner. Further,
the son has filed a partition suit before the Court below and in that also, he has
stated about the lay-out and therefore, now the petitioner has filed the present
Writ Petition for declaration as stated above. Therefore, the present Writ Petition
is not maintainable.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is only acquisition which is not in dispute and the issuance of
Notification under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6 are also not
in dispute. However, the Notification under Section 4(1) was challenged during
the earlier occasion in W.P.Nos.12283 and 12286 of 1991, which were dismissed
by this Court on 28.07.1999. There is no further challenge and the Award was
also subsequently passed, which is also not in dispute. Now the present Writ
petition is filed after statutory lapse stated to have occurred, in view of Section
24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013. Neither the possession was taken nor the
amount of compensation was paid/deposited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
8. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Award has already been
passed in the name of the original owner Velayutham Gounder and the
proceedings show that he participated in the acquisition proceedings and since
he refused to receive the amount of compensation, the same was deposited in
Court.
9. Admittedly, the original owner Velayutham died only after the Award
was passed on 25.06.1993. During his lifetime, he has not challenged/denied the
impugned land acquisition proceedings. Even after his death, since the challenge
was already made and he has also lost in it, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
clearly stated that the original owner Velayutham refused to receive the amount
of compensation and the same has also been deposited in Court and the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board has also taken possession. Now that the possession has
already been taken and it now vests with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Therefore, Section 24(2) of the New Act would not get attracted in this case.
Further, Section 24(2) says that either the amount was not paid or the
possession was not taken, then only the acquisition proceedings would get
lapsed, however, in this case, it is stated that the possession was not taken and
hence, the acquisition proceedings would get lapsed. However, since the
possession has already been taken and it now vests with the Tamil Nadu Housing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
Board, and there has also been mutation of Revenue Records in the name of the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and that the Patta now stands in the name of the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and that the petitioner has no document to show
that, as on date, the land stands in the name of the petitioner. Since the
possession has already been taken, the lapse in view of Section 24(2) of the New
Act, does not arise. The respondents are not able to prove that the amount of
compensation was paid to the original owner or the legal heirs of the said
Velayutham. Already, the authorities have deposited the amount of
compensation before the Treasury/Civil Court in the name of the original owner,
but they have not produced the receipt to show that the original owner has
already received the amount of compensation or excluding that, they have
deposited the compensation before the Civil Court. The communication sent by
the third respondent which is annexed to the typed set of papers, shows that the
award amount in S.No.29/1 has not been so far either paid or deposited.
Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy in the manner
known to law and to get the amount of compensation if already not paid or not
deposited.
10. Hence, the respondents are now directed to verify the records as to
whether the amount of compensation was already deposited or if it is deposited,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
the same may be intimated to the petitioner or if already the amount was paid to
the original owner, the same may also be intimated to the petitioner with
acknowledgement received by the original owner or if the amount is deposited
before the Civil Court, the information may be given to get the amount of
compensation with accrued interest and the respondents are directed to furnish
the necessary particulars with regard to the deposit of compensation, on or
before 26.03.2024.
11. With the above direction, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
12. List the Writ Petition in the caption "for reporting compliance" on
27.03.2024.
01.02.2024
cs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
3. The Executive Officer,
Villupuram Housing Board Division,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Villupuram.
4. The Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Officer,
Housing Board Scheme,
Cuddalore-1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 01.02.2024 in
P.VELMURUGAN, J
cs
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
