Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Anandhan (Died) on 18 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2133 of 2022
---------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 2133 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.15863 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Anandhan (Died)
2.M.Bhuvaneswari
3.M.Jagadesan
4.G.Parimala
5.The State of Tamil Naud,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Special Tahsildar – II,
(Land Acquisition)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
7.Kirupavathi
8.Sam Joseph
[R1 died. R7 & R8 are substituted as LRs of deceased R1
vide Court order dated 30.10.2025 made in
CMP.No.1754/2025 in W.A.No.2133/2022]
...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
W.A.No.2133 of 2022
---------------------------
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the order dated 08.12.2021 made in W.P.No.23047 of 2019.
For Appellant : Dr.N.Moorthi, Standing Counsel for TNHB
For Respondents : R1-Died
Mr.A.R.Suresh for R2 to 4, 7 & 8
Mrs.Akila Rajendran,
Govt.Advocate for R5 & R6
*******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 08.12.2021 in W.P.No.23047 of
2019.
2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 /
erstwhile land owners filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to pay
compensation and also to re-convey the remaining extent of land already
acquired.
3. Section 4(1) notification was issued by the competent Authority under
the Land Acquisition Act on 02.08.1984. Form 7 notification was issued on
09.01.1989. The 1st respondent/ erstwhile owner submitted objections on
02.02.1989. On 14.08.1989, the compensation has been deposited under the
Revenue Deposit. On 19.08.1989 award No.8 of 1989 was passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
Land Acquisition Officer. Admittedly, possession has been handed over by the
Government to Tamil Nadu Housing Board for developing housing scheme.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board had already developed housing scheme and sold
the houses to individuals and executed sale deeds.
4. It is not in dispute that initially W.P.No.6751 of 1990 was filed
challenging the acquisition proceedings and the Writ Petition was dismissed
on 04.04.1996 upholding the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. After
completion of land acquisition proceedings in the year 1989, once again
erstwhile land owners filed W.P.No.2929 of 2003 seeking re-conveyance of the
acquired lands. This Court directed the Government to consider the
representation. The competent Authority rejected the representation submitted
by the erstwhile land owners seeking re-conveyance of the acquired land.
5. After a lapse of several years, three Writ Petitions have been filed in
the year 2019. The writ Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with a direction to
settle compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter
referred to as “the Act, 2013”] by invoking proviso clause to Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. Since the writ Court directed the appellant to settle the
compensation under the proviso clause to Section 24 of the Act, 2013 the
present intra-Court appeal came to be instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that acquisition proceedings in all respects were concluded in the year
1989. Possession was taken on 21.11.1989 and compensation was deposited
on 14.08.1989. Tamil Nadu Housing Board developed project and sold the
plots along with houses and executed sale deeds in favour of the allottees.
That being so, the respondents 1 to 4 / writ petitioners may be at liberty to
withdraw the compensation already deposited in the revenue deposit.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 /
erstwhile land owners would oppose by stating that the respondents 1 to 4 are
entitled to get compensation under proviso clause to Section 24 of the New
Land Acquisition Act and the writ Court has granted the said relief. Thus, the
Writ Appeal is to be rejected. It is further contended that possession was
taken during the relevant point of time and it was taken after a lapse of many
years. Other erstwhile land owners had not received any compensation. For
all these reasons the writ order is to be upheld.
8. This Court considered rival submission made between the parties to
the lis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
9. A close reading of Section 24 would amplify that compensation under
New Land Acquisition Act may be considered only if the facts of the case is
falling under Section 24(1)(b) and proviso clause. Section 24(1)(b)
enumerates "where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land
Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed." The first step would
be whether the facts of the case would fall under Section 24(1)(a) or (b) of the
Act. If it falls under clause (b) to sub-Section (1), then it is to be examined
whether the land acquisition proceedings would lapse under sub-Section (2) to
Section 24 of the Act. If it is not lapsed within the meaning of Sub-Section (2)
to Section 24, then it is to be examined whether the compensation can be
granted by invoking the proviso clause. Proviso clause indicates that
"Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect
of majority of land holdings has not been depoisted in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." For invoking
proviso clause, it is to be established that the compensation in respect of
majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries. The deposit of compensation has already defined and settled in
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8
SCC 129.
10. In the present case, deposit was made on 14.08.1989 in respect of
entire land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the amount deposited was
withdrawn by the erstwhile land owners or not is immaterial for the purpose of
considering proviso clause under Section 24. In the present case absolutely
there is no pleading that the competent Authority had not deposited the
compensation. Further there is no pleading that the compensation in respect
of majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiary. That apart, the writ Court also not made any finding in respect of
these facts which are all crucial for invoking proviso under Section 24 of the
New Land Acquisition Act. No examination was made by the writ Court nor the
respondents 1 to 4 established their case, so as to fit in the present case
under the proviso clause to Section 24. That being the factum, this Court is of
the considered view that the said proviso clause has no application in respect
of present case. The respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to withdraw the
compensation already deposited and in this regard, if any, application is made,
the competent Authority/ Court may allow the respondents 1 to 4 to withdraw
the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
11. With these observations, the writ order impugned dated 08.12.2021
made in W.P.No.23047 of 2019 is set aside and the Writ appeal stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
18.11.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The State of Tamil Naud,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Special Tahsildar – II,
(Land Acquisition)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
---------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dsa
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 10:31:52 am )
