Madras High Court
The Special Secretary (Revenue) vs S.Karthikeyan on 9 January, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.524 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.524 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.4918 of 2018
1.The Special Secretary (Revenue)
- cum – The District Collector
Puducherry District,
Puducherry.
2.The Sub Collector cum
Land Acquisition Officer,
(Revenue-South),
Villianur, Puducherry. ... Appellants
Vs.
S.Karthikeyan ... Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying
to set aside the order dated 12.06.2017 in W.P.No.6964 of 2015.
For Appellants : Dr.B.Ramasamy
Additional Govt. Pleader (Pondy)
For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A.No.524 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.06.2017
made in W.P.No.6964 of 2015.
2. The respondent's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The 4(1) notification was issued on 19.06.2007. Section 6
declaration was made on 02.09.2008. Thereafter, an award was passed on
16.04.2010.
3. However, at that stage the respondent/writ petitioner earlier
filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11117 of 2010 seeking for a direction to
the respondents therein from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings
until the outcome of the appeal pending before the Director of Survey
and Land records.
4. In the said writ petition, an interim order of stay of
dispossession alone was granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Ultimately the writ petition was finally disposed on 28.02.2014.
Thereafter, the possession was taken on 19.05.2014 and as per the award,
the amount has been deposited in Civil Court in January 2015.
6. These factors are not in dispute which has been recorded by the
learned Judge in the order impugned itself.
7. With the background of these factors, the respondent/writ
petitioner had approached the Writ Court seeking for a compensation for
the land acquired under the New Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (in short '2013 Act').
8. When the said writ petition was heard, it was the stand taken by
the appellants before the Writ Court that, because of the writ petition had
been filed which was pending where the interim order of stay was
granted even though award was passed in the year 2010, the amount
could not be deposited and only after the writ petition was disposed on
28.02.2014, steps had been taken to deposit the award amount which has
been deposited in the year 2015. Therefore it cannot be stated that, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
award amount has been deposited belatedly i.e. after the 2013 Act has
come into effect.
9. The said argument made on behalf of the respondents in the writ
petition who are the appellants herein was considered and rejected by the
learned Judge. In order to appreciate the said factor, the following part of
the order which is impugned passed by the Writ Court, which is extracted
hereunder:
“7.Admittedly, the order of injunction was with
respect to the dispossession pending the writ petition as
seen from paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed.
Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of with certain
directions.
8.Thus, two facts have emerged. Firstly, there was
no bar for the respondents to deposit the award amount
during the pendency of the writ petition. Secondly, the
possession followed by deposit have been made after the
disposal of the writ petition. Incidentally, it is also to be
noted that though the possession was taken on 19.05.2014,
the deposit was made in the month of January 2015.
9.Thus, admittedly both possession and deposit have
been made after the New Act has come into force. In so far
as the issue pertaining to the possession is concerned, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry)
appearing for the respondents is correct, since there was
an order prohibiting taking over. However, the said
submission cannot be extended to the fact regarding the
belated deposit of the award amount. A mere pendency of
the writ petition by itself cannot be a bar from proceeding
with the acquisition initiated under the earlier Act,
especially, when the interim order permits the respondents
to proceed. What the petitioner seeks is a compensation
under the New Act.
10.As there is no dispute that the deposit of the
award amount has been made only in the impugned of
January 2015, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is
entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the order amount is set
aside and consequently the respondents are directed to fix
the compensation under the Act 30 of 2013 within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
10. The learned Judge has made it very clear that, the stay was
granted by the Writ Court only in respect of dispossession of the writ
petitioner from the land in question which was acquired and that would
not preclude the authorities in depositing the award amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Despite this factor, the award amount has not been deposited
before the 2013 Act came into effect and belatedly it was deposited in
January 2015. In this context it is to be noted that, Section 24(2) Proviso
of the 2013 Act as made it clear that, where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been
deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries
specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, that means the 2013 Act.
12. Here in the case in hand, the award has been passed, however
no compensation in majority of the land holdings has been deposited in
the account of the beneficiary before the 2013 Act came into effect. In
such circumstances, the compensation shall be calculated and be paid
only under the provisions of 2013 Act.
13. This has been taken into account by the learned Judge and
ultimately the learned Judge had passed orders allowing the writ petition
directing the appellants herein who are the respondents in the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition to compensate as per the 2013 Act. We do not find any error in
the said order which is impugned herein passed by the Writ Court,
therefore the appeal fails hence it is dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
also dismissed.
[R.S.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
09.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Sgl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Sgl
09.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
