A.Royar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2024 Latest Caselaw 5177 Mad

Madras High Court

A.Royar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2024

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                            W.A.No.759 of 2023


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED:   05.03.2024

                                                        CORAM


                             THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                          AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY


                                                 W.A.No.759 of 2023

                     A.Royar                                           ..   Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                     1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
                        Rep. by its Secretary to Government
                        Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
                        Fort St. George, Secretariat
                        Chennai 600 009.

                     2. The Special Tahsildar
                        Adi Dravidar Welfare
                        Aranthangi
                        Pudukottai District.                           ..   Respondents


                     Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
                     order dated 26.07.2022 made in W.P.No.20704 of 2014.


                                    For the Appellant      : Mr.A.Palaniappan



                     __________
                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 W.A.No.759 of 2023



                                      For the Respondents       : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
                                                                  State Government Pleader


                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have heard Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government

Pleader for the respondents.

2. The appellant has filed the writ petition for Declaration that

the acquisition of lands of the writ petitioner bearing S.Nos.142/1

and 142/2 in Theethanipatti Village, acquired pursuant to the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and

award pursuant thereto has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present

appeal.

__________

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

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

possession of the land remains with the present appellant even

after the award was passed. The compensation amount was never

paid to the appellant or his father.

4. The notice under Section 12(2) that was issued also depicts

that the writ petitioner's father was called upon to receive the

amount. Though it is suggested that the amount was deposited in

the Court, the cheque was returned back. The amount of

compensation, as per the award, was never paid to the appellant or

his father. In view of that Section 24(2) of the Act is squarely

applicable.

5. There is no dispute that the land of the writ petitioner/his

father was acquired. The writ petitioner's father, it appears that, has

challenged the acquisition by filing a writ petition, wherein, stay

was granted to his dispossession. The said writ petition was

subsequently dismissed.

__________

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

6. It needs to be considered that the writ petitioner's father

was offered the compensation amount. The writ petitioner's father

did not accept the award. The writ petitioner's father sought

reference to be made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. The reference was made to the Court under Section

18(1) of the Act, 1894. In the said Reference, the amount of

compensation was deposited by cheque in the Civil Court. It

appears that after the stay was granted to dispossession, the said

amount was returned by the Court. The endorsement is made that

the bank draft dated 31.03.1992 obtained from the State Bank of

India for Rs.95,735/- towards the cost of acquisition site is enclosed

as land owners refused to receive the compensation.

7. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority v. Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129]

would be squarely applicable. The learned Single Judge has properly

considered the same.

__________

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

8. The writ appeal, as such, disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7388 of 2023 is closed.

                                                            (S.V.G., CJ.)             (D.B.C., J.)
                                                                            05.03.2024
                     Index            : Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation : Yes/No

                     kpl



                     To

                     1. The Secretary to Government

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai 600 009.

2. The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Aranthangi Pudukottai District.

__________

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

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(kpl)

05.03.2024

__________

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