Madras High Court
G.Mahamoodul Hasan vs The District Collector on 13 July, 2022
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
W.A.No.938 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.938 of 2017
G.Mahamoodul Hasan ... Appellant
vs
The District Collector,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
against the order dated 01.06.2016 passed in W.P. No.17487 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.] This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 01.06.2016 passed in W.P. No.17487 of 2016
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the land, having an extent of 4.96 acres in R.S. No.279/2B, situated at Killai (South) Village, Chidambaram Taluk, owned by the father of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 appellant, was acquired by the Special Thasilidar (ADW) L.A., Chidambaram for providing house sites to Irular community and the compensation amount of Rs.26,737/- payable to the appellant's father vide Award No.7/83-84 dated 27.03.1984 was kept in Revenue Deposit, Sub Treasury, Chidambaram in R.D. No.207 dated 19.07.1984. Challenging the acquisition proceedings, the appellant's father filed a writ petition in W.P. No.3914 of 1984 and the same was dismissed on 25.03.1987. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that after demise of the appellant's father, the appellant applied for refund of the compensation amount and the Special Tahsildar (ADW) L.A., Chidambaram issued proceedings dated 31.12.1997 to pay the compensation amount to the appellant, which was kept in Revenue Deposit at Sub Treasury, Chidambaram, but the same has not been paid to him. Since the deposit has been lapsed, the appellant was unable to get the compensation. While so, the new Act, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. Therefore, the appellant submitted a representation to the respondent on 01.08.2014 to initiate fresh proceedings and fix the compensation amount in accordance with the new Act, namely, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 earlier proceedings are deemed to have lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the above New Act.
3.Placing reliance on the provisions under Section 24(2) of the above Act, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the New Act, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act and 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 said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Although the appellant is entitled to get the compensation as per provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act and in spite of representations made by him, the respondent has not come forward to pay the compensation. Therefore, the appellant has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.34783 of 2014 before this Court for a Mandamus https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 directing the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings and also fix a compensation amount in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act on the basis of his representation dated 01.08.2014 and this Court, by order dated 19.02.2015 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent therein to dispose of the representation dated 01.08.2014 filed by the appellant in accordance with law. However, by impugned order dated 22.01.2016, the request of the appellant was rejected by the respondent stating that the State has brought an amendment to the new Act, whereby exemption has been granted in respect of land acquisition proceedings initiated for the benefit of Irular community. Challenging the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the respondent and seeking a direction to the respondent to invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act and revise the compensation amount and to pay the same, the appellant has filed the above Writ Petition in W.P. No.17487 of 2016. But the learned Single Judge, while observing that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act cannot be applied to the case of the appellant, has dismissed the above writ petition. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017
4.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get the compensation as per the New Act since the purpose of acquisition of the appellant's land was for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars and Irulars and the said acquisition proceedings by virtue of amendment brought into the new Act have been exempted from the purview of the New Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant. Moreover, when the respondent has already deposited the entire amount of compensation of Rs.26,737.50 in Revenue Deposit, Sub Treasury, Chidambaram in R.D. No.207 dated 19.07.1984, only the appellant's father refused to come and collect the said amount. Therefore, now the appellant cannot say that he is entitled to get the compensation amount as per the New Act.
5.In reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the respondent has come forward to award the compensation amount of Rs.26,737/- in Award No.7/83-84 dated 27.03.1984, the same was kept in Revenue Deposit, Sub Treasury, Chidambaram in R.D. No.207 dated 19.07.1984. Subsequently, the said deposit was lapsed. After the provisions under Section 24(2) of the above Act came into effect, the appellant has made a representation to fix the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 compensation as per the New Act, but the same was denied by the respondent.
6.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the Proceedings dated 31.12.1997 issued by the Special Tahsildar (ADW) Land Acquisition, Chidambaram, submitted that the Special Tahsildar (ADW) Land Acquisition, Chidambaram has ordered to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.26,737/- to the appellant. Referring to a letter addressed by the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Tamil Nadu, Madras to the Treasury Officer, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said amount of Rs.26,737.50 was lapsed vide above letter issued by the Principal Accountant General. When the deposit amount was lapsed, by the time the New Act came into force and therefore, the appellant has filed the above writ petition in W.P. No.17487 of 2016 challenging the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the respondent and seeking a direction to the respondent to invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act and revise the compensation amount and pay the same. Since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated as early as 1984 and the compensation was not even deposited in the Court, without properly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 appreciating the fact as to whether the amended Act had given any benefit to the claimants or not with regard to higher compensation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7.Heard both sides.
8.Admittedly, the land, having an extent of 4.96 acres in R.S. No.279/2B, situated at Killai (South) Village, Chidambaram Taluk, owned by the father of the appellant, was acquired by the Special Thasilidar (ADW) L.A., Chidambaram for providing house sites to Irular community and the compensation amount of Rs.26,737/-, payable to the appellant's father vide Award No.7/83-84 dated 27.03.1984, was kept in Revenue Deposit, Sub Treasury, Chidambaram in R.D. No.207 dated 19.07.1984.
9.It could be seen from records that since no step whatsoever was taken by the respondent to renew the said deposit, the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Tamil Nadu, Madras has addressed a letter to the Treasury Officer stating that the said amount of Rs.26,737.50 was lapsed. In spite of the fact that the deposit amount was lapsed, neither compensation amount has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 offered either to the appellant's father or to the appellant nor the said amount has been deposited in the Sub Court. Subsequently, when the New Act, namely provisions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act came into effect, the appellant made a representation dated 01.08.2014 to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings and fix the compensation amount in accordance with the new Act, since the earlier proceedings are deemed to have lapsed as per New Act. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as under:
'24.Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases – (1)....
(a)...
(b)...
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017 Provided 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 said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'
10.A perusal of the above provision would show that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act and 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 said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 W.A.No.938 of 2017
11.Therefore, the findings given by the learned Single Judge that since the purpose of acquisition of the appellant's land was for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars and Irulars and the said acquisition proceedings by virtue of amendment brought into the new Act has been exempted from the purview of the New Act, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act cannot be applicable to the case of the appellant is totally incorrect. Since the earlier proceedings are deemed to have lapsed as per New Act, the claim made by the appellant ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and this Appeal stands allowed. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to determine the compensation, by applying Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to pay the same to the appellant within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.
[T.R.,J.] [K.B.,J.]
13.07.2022
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/12
W.A.No.938 of 2017
To
The District Collector,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/12
W.A.No.938 of 2017
T.RAJA,J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
vga
W.A.No.938 of 2017
13.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/12