The Executive Engineer And vs The Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust
2025 Latest Caselaw 3728 Mad

Madras High Court

The Executive Engineer And vs The Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust on 10 March, 2025

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S. M. Subramaniam

    2025:MHC:969
                                                                                       WA No. 38 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 10-03-2025

                                                         CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
                                              AND
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

                                            WA No. 38 of 2025
                                                 AND
                                           CMP NO. 259 OF 2025
                The Executive Engineer And
                Administrative Officer
                Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
                Coimbatore Housing Unit,
                Tatabad, Sivananda Colony,
                Coimbatore 600 012.

                                                                                       Appellant(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust
                Coimbatore, Rep., by its Trustees,
                Manilal Govindji Khona
                S/o. Govindji, M. Soundararajan,
                S/o. Muthusamy,
                D.Lakshminarayanasamy,
                S/o. Duraisamy,
                Having office at No.1133, Trichy Road,
                Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
                                                                                          WA No. 38 of 2025


                2.The Secretary To Government
                Housing and Urban Development
                Department, Fort St. George,
                Chennai – 600 009.

                3.The Special Tahsildar (land
                Acquisition)
                Housing Scheme No.III,
                Tatabad, Sivananda Colony,
                Coimbatore - 12.

                4.The Tahsildar
                Coimbatore (North) Taluk,
                Coimbatore.

                                                                                          Respondent(s)

                                                      WA No. 38 of 2025

                PRAYER
                To set aside the order dated 28-04-2023 passed in WP.No.3351/2020.



                                  For Appellant(s):       Mr.P.Kumaresan AGG Assisted
                                                          by Mr.M.Arun Kumar SC For
                                                          TNHB

                                  For Respondent(s):      Mr.S.Silambanan Senior Counsel
                                                          For Mr.R.N.Amarnath For R1
                                                          Mr.A.Selvendran For R2 To R4




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
                                                                                         WA No. 38 of 2025


                                                   JUDGMENT

(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present Intra-Court appeal has been instituted challenging the order

dated 28.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.3351 of 2020.

2. The writ petition has been instituted on the ground that land acquisition

proceedings lapsed on account Section 24(2) under the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (also known as the New Land Acquisition Act).

3. The acquisition proceedings were completed in all respects, with the

notification under Section 4(1) issued in the year 1982, followed by an award

passed in the year 1987. The compensation amount was deposited with the

Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in L.A.No.11 of 1981 under Section 30 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (also known as Old Land Acquisition Act). The land

acquisition proceedings concluded long ago. However, the writ petition was

filed several years later, mainly relying on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. The issues to be considered by this Court is whether the twin

conditions contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act,

have been complied with as reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Indoor Development Authority vs.

Manoharlal and Others1.

5. Mr.P.Kumaresan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing

on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that all the procedures as

contemplated under the Old Land Acquisition Act were followed. The award

was passed, compensation amount was deposited in the Court and possession

was taken by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and handed over to the Tamil Nadu

Housing Board. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents

are untenable.

1. (2020) 8 SCC 129

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

6. The Writ Court has not considered the fact that the possession was

taken by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and hand over to the Tamil Nadu

Housing Board, and the compensation amount was also deposited. Pertinently

the Tamil Nadu Housing Board obtained the layout approval from the

competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,

1971. That being so, the writ petition per se is not entertainable.

7. Mr.S.Silambanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the 1st respondent would oppose by stating that the procedures as contemplated

under the Land Acquisition Act of the year 1894 were not followed when taking

possession. It is for the appellant to establish that the compensation amount was

deposited. There are inconsistencies within the documents produced by the

appellant regarding deposit of compensation. Therefore, the learned Single

Judge is right in declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section

24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act and thus, the present writ appeal is to be

rejected.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

8. This Court has considered the arguments as advanced between the

parties to the lis on hand.

9. The 4(1) notification was issued in the year 1982, followed by a 5(A)

inquiry was conducted in the years 1982 and 1984. Six declarations were issued

in the year 1985. The award inquiry under Section 11 of the Old Act was

conducted from 25.02.1987 to 27.02.1987 and the award was passed on

16.10.1987. After passing the award, notice under Section 12(2) were served on

the landowners, who participated in the process. The compensation was

deposited on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in L.A.No.11 of

1981 in Award No.10/87 dated 29.03.1988, along with the Cheque No.E304436

for sum of Rs.20,47,776,.55/-. Subsequently, possession of the property was

handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 1990. The Tamil

Nadu Housing Board converted the land into layout, obtained approval from the

Planning Authority vide LP/DTCP No.567 of 1994 and prepared for the

physical utilisation of the lands. A reference under Section 30 made under the

Old Act was also inquired into and answered by the Land Acquisition Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

vide order dated 23.09.2013 in L.A.O.P.No.115 of 1994. The said order would

indicate that the compensation amount has been deposited and the direction was

issued to settle the compensation to the claimants/erstwhile landowners.

10. This Court in order to satisfy the twin conditions gone into the

documents filed by the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

11. Pertinently, the 1st respondent initially filed a writ petition in

W.P.No.7204 of 1987 challenging 4(1) notification issued under the Old Land

Acquisition Act. The said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Government, if any exemption petition was filed.

Subsequently, another writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in

W.P.No.18250 of 1994 challenging the 4(1) notification once again, but the said

writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

12. Regarding possession, the possession certificate signed between the

Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) and the Coimbatore Housing Unit Authority

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

stands extracted hereunder:

13. Regarding the depositions of the compensation amount, the receipt

enclosed is extracted here under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

14. Beyond the aforementioned documents relating to possession and

deposit of compensation, the Sub Court, Coimbatore in L.A.O.P.No.115 of 1994

passed an order dated 23.09.2013, wherein, the details regarding the subject

property has been stated as under:

“Details of Claimants 99 to 101

Name of the Claimants 1 Venkidasamy (C99) 2 Maruthakkall (C100) 3 Krishnasamy (C101) Address of the Claimants : 7/216, Venkitapuram,

Telegupalayam,

Coimbatore.

Village where Acquisition land is : Telegupalayam

situated S.No. Area in Amount

Acre Rs. P

S. Numbers : 455 1.21 456 6.50 Total 7.71 10,65,573.65 Court Deposit amount 10,65,573.65

The claimants 99 to 101 filed a Sale Deed dated 21.04.1977

executed by the Rangasamy Konar; the documents is marked as

Ex.C.9, the sale deed is verified by this Court. It is certified copy;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

from it, it is understood that the claimants 99 to 101 are entitled

for the land as mentioned above:”

15. When twin conditions as stipulated under Section 24(2) of the New

Land Acquisition Act has been complied with, the writ petitions filed

challenging the land acquisitions proceedings are to be construed as stale

claims, and the Courts are not expected to entertain the writ petitions.

16. In the present case, the land acquisition proceedings were concluded

long ago in the year 1994, and the Government handed over the possession to

the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who in turn secured layout approval from the

Planning Authority in the same year. The acquired lands handed over to the

Housing Board were converted into housing plots for the purpose of housing

scheme. That being so, now the 1st respondent / Club cannot claim right over the

subject property.

17. The Writ Court has not considered these documents for the purpose of

complying Section 24(2) which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

Indoor Development Authority's case cited supra. Since the documents reveals

that the possession was taken by the Government and handed over to the

Housing Board and the compensation amount was deposited before the Sub

Court, Coimbatore, there is no basis to entertain the writ petition filed on the

ground that the land acquisition proceedings became lapsed.

18. However, one of the issues raised by the 1st respondent is that the

Government has not preferred an appeal, and the requisitioning body, namely

the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, filed the present writ appeal, which should

therefore be rejected. This issue is no more res integra, as the Constitution

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas

Parishad vs. Gyan Devi and Others2, has approved the rights of the

Requisitioning Body to file an appeal challenging the determination of the

amount of compensation fixed.

19. The Division Bench of this Court in The Chairman and Others Vs.

R.Karuppa Konar and Others3, had occasion to consider review applications

2. (1995) 2 SCC 326

3. 2007 (6) MLJ 416

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

filed by the requisitioning body against quashing of notifications issued under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph 10, it was held as

follows:

“10. In view of our above discussion and the

above said settled legal position of law by the

Honourable Apex Court that the requisitioning body

is an interested party to the proceedings and in view

of the undisputed fact that the petitioner is the

requisitioning body, we are unable to accept the

contention raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents that these review applications filed by the

requisitioning body is not maintainable. At this

juncture, the learned senior counsel for the

respondents has submitted that if at all, as per the

judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, the

requisitioning body should have filed only an appeal

but not the review applications. This is nothing but

reading between the lines of the judgments of the

Honourable Apex Court, since it is common

knowledge of anybody that Review is only a

continuation of the earlier proceedings. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

file these review applications. Thus settling this issue,

now we shall proceed to decide the other points urged

by both the parties.”

20. In view of the above, we are inclined to interfere and consequently,

the writ order dated 28.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.3351 of 2020 is set aside and

the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The Housing Board shall take necessary steps

to protect the land for implementation of public welfare schemes. The

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.) 10-03-2025

Jeni Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )

To

1.The Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust Coimbatore, Rep., by its Trustees, Manilal Govindji Khona S/o. Govindji, M. Soundararajan, S/o. Muthusamy, D.Lakshminarayanasamy, S/o.

Duraisamy, Having office at No.1133, Trichy Road, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

2.The Secretary To Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -