Madras High Court
Kannayiram vs The State Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.604 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.604 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.650 of 2017
Kannayiram ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Tasildhar,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of declaration declaring the acquisition of land admeasuring extent of
1.68.0 hectare comprised in Survey No.67/3 Vengikal Village,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District in a G.O. Ms.No.454, Revenue (RA.I)
dated 3.6.1998 No.II(2)/REV/1208(b-5)/98(Block No.1) is lapsed under
S.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.604 of 2017
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, AGP.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the acquisition of land measuring an extent of 1.68.0 hectare comprised in Survey No.67/3, situated at Vengikal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District in G.O.Ms.No.454, Revenue (RA.I) dated 03.06.1998 No.II(2)/REV/1208(b-5)/98(Block No.1) as lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he has purchased the agricultural land comprised in S.No.67/3 measuring an extent of 3.16 acres situated at Vengikal Village, vide registered sale deed Doc.No.2699/1990 dated 30.09.1990 and pursuant to the said purchase, the petitioner is cultivating the said property for his livelihood. While so, the State Government decided to acquire the petitioner's property along with certain other dry lands, totally 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 to an extent of 73.86.0 hectares for the purpose of construction of Government Office Building and Court (herein after referred as 'master plan complex') and has also issued a notice under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'Act'). Subsequently, the State has issued G.O.Ms.No.454, Revenue (RA.I) dated 03.06.1998 No.II(2)/ REV/ 1208 (b-
5)/ 98 (Block No.1) and acquired the entire extent of petitioner's property and a compensation amount of Rs.1,23,889/- was also paid to the petitioner, by virtue of the Award No.1/99 dated 16.08.1999. Since, a meagre compensation amount was paid to the petitioner, he opted for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and subsequently, the reference court has enhanced the compensation, however, the same was not paid to the petitioner. Though the purpose for which the lands were acquired was accomplished, however, the petitioner's land was not put to any use, and till date, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property and the State has not taken physical possession of the same even after a lapse of 23 years, accordingly, the entire acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed, in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'New Act'). Hence, on the above said ground, this Writ petition is filed. 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the Award was passed in the year 1999 and the same was received by the petitioner, however, till date, the physical possession of the subject property was not taken by the respondents, even after a lapse of 23 years. It is pertinent to note that, in terms of Section 24(2) of the New Act, in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the new 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. In the present case, neither the enhanced compensation amount awarded by the reference court was paid to the petitioner nor the physical possession of the subject property was taken over by the respondents and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the subject land was acquired and award was passed in the year 1999, and after passing the award, possession was also 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 taken over on 29.03.2000, prior to that the entire compensation amount was paid to the petitioner. Further, on consideration of the request of the petitioner, the matter was referred to Principal Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai under Section 18(1) of the said Act and an enhanced award of Rs.65/- per square feet was passed by the reference court, as against which an appeal was preferred by the Land Acquisition officer and this Court, vide common order dated 28.02.2013 granted interim stay on condition that 40% of the enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited in Principal Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai and the same was complied with by the respondents. Though it is the case of the petitioner that his land was not put to use, however, it is pertinent to note that, most of the lands acquired for master plan complex have been utilized and meager extent which has been earmarked for other District Offices is lying vacant at present for various administrative reasons and further, the subject land lies in the midst of the lands acquired and utilized and the same cannot be re-conveyed. So, in view of the above, possession was taken and the compensation amount was paid to the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings has not lapsed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017
5. This Court paid its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The land acquisition proceedings was initiated as against the petitioner and the land was acquired by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) and G.O.Ms.No.454, Revenue (RA.I) dated 03.06.1998 No.II(2)/ REV/ 1208(b-5)/ 98(Block No.1). Thereafter, an award was passed in Award No.1/1999 and the entire compensation amount was received by the petitioner and according to the respondents, possession was also taken by the Government on 29.03.2000.
7. Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been pressed into service by the petitioner to contend that where an award under 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. For better appreciation, the relevant provision is extracted hereunder :-
6/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 "Land acquisition process under Act No.I of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
(a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) When an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1) in case of Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition, Act 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 aresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
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.
8. The very same issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, and the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word or used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as nor or as and. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-
deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” (Emphasis Supplied)
9. In the case on hand, though it is the case of the petitioner that possession was not taken till date, but it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has received the compensation and possession was taken over as early as on 29.03.2000 and further, as per the order of this Court dated 28.02.2013, 40% of the enhanced award passed by the reference court, to the tune of Rs.1,59,36,192/- was also deposited in the Reference court. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017
10. From the above, though there is a variation in the compensation amount said to have been received by the petitioner, however, it is evident that the compensation amount was received by the petitioner and the enhanced compensation amount awarded by the reference court has been deposited and possession has also been taken. That being the case, the decision in Indore Development Authority case (supra) stands squarely attracted and possession having been taken and enhanced compensation amount having been deposited, there is no question of lapse of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner seeking to invoke Section 24 (2) of the Act is wholly misconceived and unsustainable and the contention deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the prayer as sought for in the present petition cannot be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file appropriate application for disbursement of the amount deposited before the reference court and the reference court is directed to consider the same and disburse the amount in deposit to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition fails and the same is 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 dismissed with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
1. The State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
2. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Tasildhar, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.604 of 2017 W.P.No.604 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.650 of 2017 16.06.2022 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis