Madras High Court
Ponnammal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22/12/2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.17415 of 2014
1.Ponnammal
2.Subramaniam
3.Prakash
4.Selvi
5.Santhamani
6.Rengammal
7.Asokan
8.Muthusamy
9.Nataraj
10.V.K.Mani
11.Palanisamy
12.Manokaran
13.Sundari
14.Santhamani ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 035.
3.The Executive Engineer /
Administrative Officer,
Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB,
Tatabad, Coimbatore District.
4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),
Housing Schemes Unit - III,
Tatabadi, Coimbatore - 12. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Declaration, or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, in respect of the lands of an extent of 5.86 acres comprised in S.F.No.450 situated at Telugupalayam Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioners, as lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013).
For Petitioners : Mr.R.N.Amarnath
For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar
Government Advocate for R1 & R4
Mr.B.Vivekavanan
TNHB for R2 and R3
- - -
CAV on 12/12/2014 and pronounced on /12/2014
O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The first petitioner submits that the petitioners 2 to 5 are her brothers and sisters. The sixth petitioner, is the wife of Late V.P.Palanisamy, who was the brother of her husband, Late V.P.Palaniappan. The petitioners 7 to 9 are the sons of the sixth petitioner. The petitioners 10 to 14 are the sons of the daughters of the Late Krishna Konar and Late Massakkal. The said late Masakkal was the sister of her mother Late Ponnammal. She is filing this writ petition on behalf of her and others. The petitioner further submits that originally the lands to an extent of 5.86 acres, comprised in S.F.No.450, situated at Telugupalayam Village, Coimbatore belonged to her grandfather Late Pongali Konar. He was in possession and enjoyment of the property by doing cultivation and also resides there with his family. The said Late Pongali Konar had two sons viz., Late V.P.Palanisamy and his father Late V.P.Palaniappan and two daughters viz., Late Massakkal and his mother Late Ponnammal. Her grandfather along with his sons and daughters were in possession and enjoyment of the property during their lifetime. The said property is an ancestral property. The revenue records such as patta and adangal stood in the name of said Late Pongali Konar. As her grandfather and the above said Late V.P.Palanisamy, Late V.P.Palaniappan, Late Massakkal and Late Ponnammal died intestate, the petitioners as the legal-heirs of the above said Late Pongali Gounder, Late Palaniappan, Late Ponnammal, Late Palanisamy and Late Massakkal, became the absolute owners of the property by virtue of succession and inherited the subject property and are in possession and enjoyment of the property and regularly doing cultivation. In so far as the subject property is concerned neither the petitioners nor their ancestors effected any partition. Hence, the petitioners being the co-owners of the subject property are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, the petitioners' land was subjected to Land Acquisition Proceedings along with other lands in that locality under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called "the Old Act" by the first respondent for the purpose of "Annanagar Neighbourhood Scheme" sponsored by the respondents 2 and 3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.925 (Housing and Urban Development Department) on 24.09.1982. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be made in G.O.Ms.No.1074 (Housing and Urban Development Department) on 15.10.1985. However, neither the petitioners nor their ancestors were served with any sort of notices for any enquiry regarding the passing of Award. But, on enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the said acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an award in Award No.10/1987, dated 16.10.1987. So far, though the Award came to be made on 16.10.1987, neither the petitioners nor their ancestors were intimated about the passing of the Award or served with any notice under Section 12(2) of the Old Act so as to enable them to know about the award and to receive the compensation payable to them. In fact, the compensation payable to them was neither offered nor paid to the petitioners or to their ancestors or deposited before any competent civil Court till date.
2. The first petitioner further submits that though the award came to be made in the year 1987, the fourth respondent did not take any steps for taking possession of the subject lands from the petitioners or from their ancestors. Till now, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and regularly doing cultivation in the subject property. Till now the respondents have not implemented any housing scheme in that locality for the reason that the entire housing scheme in the area was dropped by the respondents. The first petitioner further submits that in such circumstances, now, the Government of India brought in New Land Acquisition Act in the place of the "Old Act, viz., the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and the Settlement Act 2013 (Act 30/2013), hereinafter called the New Act and the same came into effect from 01.01.2014. The first petitioner further submits that as far as Section 24(2) of the New Act, if the physical possession of the lands are not taken or the compensation is not paid in respect thereof the entire proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed. Section 24(2) of the New Act reads as follows:-
"24. Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 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 provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply: or
(b) 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.
(2) Notwithstanding 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 in 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 provision 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 Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
3. The first petitioner further submits that after the commencement of the New Act, the petitioners are getting an absolute and new right to retain the possession and title of the property for the reasons stated supra. The first petitioner further submits that in the absence of any records to prove the fact that the physical possession of the lands were taken under the Old Act and the compensation was paid, as per Section 24(2) of the New Act, the entire Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Old Act has become lapsed. The first petitioner further submits that in view of the fact that the physical possession of the subject lands were not taken by the fourth respondent as contemplated under Section 16 of the Old Act in accordance with law and the compensation amount is neither offered nor paid to the petitioners or to their ancestors till date or deposited in the civil Court as contemplated under Section 31 of the Old Act, the petitioners are entitled to seek for a declaration that the entire Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the New Act.
4. The first petitioner further submits that though the acquisition proceedings had become lapsed for the reason stated above, the respondents have maintained that the lands belong to them as the acquisition proceedings under the Old Act attained finality in view of the passing of the Award and the possession was handed over to the Housing Board. As such, a cloud is created over the subject land. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition.
5. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.N.Amarnath, appearing for the petitioners would contend that till now the physical possession of the subject land is not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., the fourth respondent herein either from the petitioners or their ancestors under Section 16 of the Old Act. Further, he contended that though the award was passed as early as in the year 1987, till today neither the petitioners nor their ancestors were offered and paid the compensation amount as per award in respect of the subject land and in fact the compensation amount was also not deposited before the competent civil Court as envisaged under Section 31 of the Old Act. To support his contentions, the highly competent counsel for petitioners has filed a reply obtained under RTI by way of additional typed set of papers. He further contended that till today, no notices were received by the petitioners from the civil Court, Coimbatore with regard to the compensation.
6. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that since the compensation amount is neither offered and paid to the petitioners or their ancestors nor deposited in the competent civil Court and further the physical possession of the subject lands is not taken by the fourth respondent from the landowners, Section 24(2) of the New Act is squarely applicable to the instant case for getting remedy. Hence, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act in respect of the subject land becomes lapsed. The highly competent counsel to sustain his submissions has cited the following judgments:-
(i) PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN. vs. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183
(ii) Raghbir Singh Sherawat vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 792
(iii) PATASI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 503
(iv) Karuppathal -Vs- State of Tamilnadu reported in (2014) 5 CTC 282
(v) Union of India and others -Vs- Shiv Raj and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564
(vi) Bimla Devi and others -Vs- State of Haryana and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 583
(vii) Bharat Kumar -Vs- State of Haryana and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 586
(viii) P. Jeyadevan -Vs- State of Tamilnadu reported in (2014) 4 MLJ page 325
(ix) A.Nagarajan and others -Vs- Secretary to Government and others reported in (2014) 6 MLJ 29
(x) Judgment of the Apex Court in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association - Vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 5 CTC page 857
(xi) Judgment of the Apex Court in Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others in SLP (C) No.16578 of 2007, dated 11.12.2014.
7. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that the second respondent in its counter affidavit had stated that the possession of the subject land is acquired and vested with the Government of Tamilnadu. But, there are no averments with regard to taking of the possession of the subject land by the fourth respondent from the landowners. In fact, no records were produced to prove the fact of taking possession of the land. Even with regard to deposit of the compensation amount, no records were produced by them.
8. Relying on the above decisions, the highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the fourth respondent herein, who is the Land Acquisition Officer under the Old Act did not take the physical possession of the land either from the petitioners or from their ancestors and that the petitioners were neither offered nor paid the compensation amount or deposited before the civil Court after following the mandatory requirements and procedures as contemplated under the Old Act, before making the deposit in the civil Court, the entire proceedings under the Old Act become lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the New Act.
9. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of him and on behalf of the third respondent. The second and third respondents submit that the petitioners are in no way connected to the property in Survey No.450 and their contentions about the ownership have not been supported by production of "Death Certificate" and "Legal Heir-ship Certificate". Further, no relevant revenue records stands in the name of the writ petitioners herein. Hence, the writ petitioners have "no locus standi" to challenge the acquisition proceedings in the belated stage. For this reason alone, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. The second and third respondents further submit that the copy of the "adangal" dated 16.12.2009, enclosed in page No.3 of the typed set of paper, stands in the name of the "Dead Person" viz., "Late.Pongali Konar". Therefore, the above said "adangal" would not confer any legal rights / title to the writ petitioners. The second and third respondents further submit that Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore has proposed to acquire the lands for the formation of Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Housing Scheme in Telugupalayam Village, Coimbatore and the Land Acquisition proposals were initiated to acquire the lands under Land Acquisition Act measuring an extent of 180.16 acres inclusive of Survey No.450 for an extent of 5.86 acres.
10. The second and third respondents further submit that the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.925, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 24.09.1982 and was published at page 11 of Supplement to Part II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.41-A, dated 20.10.1982 as Notification No.II (2) HUD/5661/82. The substance of Notification was also published for the information of the public as required under the Land Acquisition Act after observing usual formalities. The second and third respondents further submit that the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the then Land Acquisition Officer on 27.12.1982, 28.12.1982, 10.05.1984, 11.05.1984, 14.05.1984 and 18.06.1984. During the course of enquiry, almost all the landowners have raised their objections for the acquisition of lands. Their objections were communicated to the requisitioning body and replies obtained and communicated to the landowners. The objections raised by the landowners, are general in nature and the same were overruled by the Government. The second and third respondents further submit that the Draft Declaration under Section 6 was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1074, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 15.10.1985. The Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.403, dated 16.10.1985, Section-II, Part II. The locality publication was made in the Tamil Daily "Thina Thanthi" on 17.10.1985 and the substance of the locality was published on 18.10.1985. The second and third respondents further submit that the Draft Direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by Government in their letter No.50522/82/85-1, dated 30.10.1985. The same was published in Page No.8 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.47, dated 04.12.1985. Further, the notices under Section 9(3) and 10 have been served to the landowners and interested persons and their acknowledgments were obtained. The Award enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.02.1987, 26.02.1987 and 27.02.1987. The second and third respondents further submit that the Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987. The possession of the lands in S.F.No.450 to an extent of 5.86 acres is acquired and vested with Government of Tamil Nadu. The second and third respondents further submit that the Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987, stands in the name of (1) Arumugha Konar, (2) Chinnammal, (3) V.P.Palaniappan, (4) Masathal, (5) Rangathal, (6) Subramaniam, (7) Ponnammal (8) Tmt.Selvam, (9) Chinnamani, (10), Kannammal, (11) Minor Suresh represented by his Mother viz., Kannammal. However, the notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act have been served to all of them. None of them have appeared for the Award enquiry. Hence, the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited in civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
11. The second and third respondents further submit that out of 10 names mentioned in the Award No.10/87, viz., V.P.Palaniappan and Ponnammal alone stood in the notified persons list. Other petitioners are neither notified persons nor the interested persons. However, the interested persons are entitled to get the Award of Compensation, after proving their respective ownership and production of original title deeds related to the acquired land. The second and third respondents further submit that the Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987 and the entire land was acquired and the same is vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu for the implementation of Housing Scheme for general public.
12. The second and third respondents further submit that the grounds taken by the petitioners are sham and nominal and the same are denied as follows:-
The Acquisition of the Land Act was enforced by the Land Acquisition Officer on the dry lands i.e., non-cultivation lands and thereby in turn the lands may be utilized for construction of houses to fulfill the requirements of shelter-less general public. The objection raised by the petitioner about the good policy of servicing the housing needs to the public by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board may be overruled. The compensation amount for the lands to an extent of 5.86 acres has been worked out and deposited in civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
13. The second and third respondents further submit that as per the Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987, the Survey No.450 for the extent of 5.86 acres stands in the name of (1) Arumugha Konar, (2) Chinnammal, (3) V.P.Palaniappan, (4) Masathal, (5) Rangathal, (6) Subramaniam, (7) Ponnammal (8) Tmt.Selvam, (9) Chinnamani, (10), Kannammal, (11) Minor Suresh represented by his Mother viz., Kannammal. However, as per the Award No.10/1987, dated 16.10.1987:-
"None of the above persons have appeared for Award enquiry even though notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act have been served on all of them. So, the apportionment of the land among the notified persons could not be decided. Hence, the compensation amount for the above land is worked out as follows and orders to be deposited in the civil Court under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act."
The second and third respondents further submit that the writ petitioners have not produced any copies of documents to prove their possession, enjoyment and cultivation over the acquired land. Further, the possession was already taken over and the land is vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioners herein have no right to re-occupy the Government land, that too after passing of Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987.
14. The second and third respondents further submit that the copy of the Adangal, enclosed in Page No.3 is not acceptable and the same has been allegedly obtained on 16.12.2009 and certified as true copy in the year 2014. Further, there is not an iota of evidence produced for the past 24 years, i.e., from 1985 to 2009. The second and third respondents further submit that the writ petitioner herein has not produced the copies of documents related to his possession and enjoyment of property. Further, no documents have been marked in proof of their residential status. However, the writ petitioners encroached upon the property, after the Award No.10/87, dated 16.10.1987. Therefore, the writ petitioners are encroachers and they cannot claim the rights over the property, without proving their legal right and title. The second and third respondents further submit that no patta and other relevant revenue records stand in the name of the writ petitioners. However, the writ petitioners re-possessed the acquired land and also created the revenue and other records in their favour, without consent and knowledge of the Government of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
15. The second and third respondents further submit that the writ petitioners are not the original owners and hence, the writ petitioners have no "locus standi" to claim any rights under Section 24(2) of "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for misrepresentation and suppression of real facts. Further, the writ petitioners have intentionally suppressed the real facts and they must realize that "dura lex sed lex" - "the law is hard, but it is the law". The second and third respondents further submit that the writ petitioners herein have not produced a copy of the revenue records / relevant registered sale deeds to prove their respective ownership and rights over the property. Therefore, the writ petitioners are mere encroachers and they cannot claim the rights over the acquired property, without proving their legal right and title over the property. The second and third respondents further submit that the petitioners herein have submitted as if they are cultivating and also residing over the property. However, they have not produced any copy of the "Patta", Property tax paid receipt" and "electricity service connection" etc. The second and third respondents further submit that the petitioners herein have intentionally suppressed the real facts and misrepresented as if they are having the possession without any valid documentary proof. Hence, they are liable to be punished under Section 84 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16. The second and third respondents further submit that even assuming that the writ petitioners are legal-heirs of the original landowners, then they are entitled only to get the Award of Compensation alone, which was deposited in the name of original landowners. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim any rights and title over the acquired land. The second and third respondents further submit that the entire Land Acquisition Proceedings was completed and the possession of the land was taken over and vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the writ petitioners cannot claim any rights under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The second and third respondents further submit that the petitioners are in no way connected to the property in Survey No.450 and no "Death Certificate" and "Legal-Heirship Certificate" have been enclosed along with their petitions in order to prove their ownership. Further, no patta and relevant revenue records stand in the name of the writ petitioners. Hence, the writ petitioners are strangers and have "no locus standi" to challenge the acquisition proceedings in the belated stage. Hence, this respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
17. The highly competent Government Advocate Mr.V.Shanmugasundar appearing for the first and fourth respondents submits that the first respondent had issued G.O. in the year 1982, for acquiring the petitioners' lands and neighbour's lands for forming Neighbourhood Scheme. Accordingly, the fourth respondent had issued notification under the Old Act and after adhering to all the legal formalities had acquired the land in the year 1985. The compensation amount had been deposited before the civil Court. The award No.10/1987, dated 16.10.1987, was passed by the fourth respondent after assessing the compensation. In turn, the fourth respondent had handed over the acquired lands, which are belonging to the petitioners to the second and third respondents herein, who are the requisitioning body. Under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot seek remedy under the New Act.
18. Relying on the counter affidavit of the second respondent filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, the highly competent counsel Mr.B.Vivekavanan argued that after observing all the formalities under the Old Act, the entire acquisition proceedings attained finality. Further, the possession of the lands were also taken over and vested with the Government and the compensation amount awarded was also ordered to be deposited under Section 31 of the Old Act. Now, the second respondent is also taking speedy action to develop the subject land retained by TNHB along with other land in that area for a housing scheme, for that, a layout has been preferred and also obtained approval from the planning authorities. As such, at this stage, the writ petitioners' prayer is not maintainable.
19. Having considered the submissions made by the highly competent counsel for the petitioners and the highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and on perusal of the counter affidavit, the typed-set of papers and the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioners as well as the various decisions referred to above on Section 24(2) of the New Act, this Court is of the view that:-
(i) In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the possession of the land was taken over and vested with the Government of Tamilnadu. But, interestingly, no statement was made with regard to the date of taking possession of the subject land by the fourth respondent from the landowners. The respondents did not even produce any records to show that the fourth respondent took possession of the land from the landowners. On the contrary, the reply obtained under the Right to Information Act 2005 with regard to subject land clearly established that there are no documents for taking possession of the land. Moreover, under the New Act, it is the obligation on the part of the State Government to prove the fact of taking the physical possession of the subject land from the landowners, but it did not do so. Since, with regard to the contingency of taking physical possession as envisaged under Section 24(2) of the New Act, the respondents are not in a position to prove by way of production of any records, the petitioners are entitled to get a relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act.
(ii) It is stated in the counter affidavit of the second respondent that in respect of the present acquisition an award was passed in Award No.10/1987, dated 16.10.1987 and the award amount was ordered to be deposited in the civil Court under Section 31 of the Old Act. But, the respondents have not filed any documents to prove that the award amount is in the civil Court deposit. In the reply given under RTI, it is replied that the award amount was deposited. However, the document furnished under RTI do not reveal that the award amount is in the Court deposit. Further, as rightly contended by the petitioners no procedure was followed as per Section 31 of the old Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed so as to get relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act on this ground also.
(iii) The respondents had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Old Act for acquiring the petitioner's land for forming Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, in the year 1982. Even after a lapse of considerable amount of time, the said Housing Scheme had not been implemented. As such, the purpose for which, the Scheme was initiated had not been resolved / materialized.
(iv) There is no authenticated records on the side of the respondents to prove that the respondents have paid compensation amount as per Award No.10/1987, dated 16.10.1987. Therefore, there is a lapse on the side of the respondents, as the Rules to be followed during Land Acquisition Proceedings have not been complied with.
(v) It is evident on scrutiny of records that the Village Administrative Officer, who is functioning under the respondents herein as a subordinate and who is also attached to the State Revenue Department had issued the documents viz., adangal, in favour of Late Pongali Konar. As the first petitioner's grandfather and the above said Late V.P.Palanisamy, Late V.P.Palaniappan, Late Massakkal and Late Ponnammal died intestate, the petitioners as the legal-heirs of the above said persons have become the absolute owners of the property by virtue of succession and inherited the subject property and are in possession and enjoyment of the property and regularly doing cultivation. As such, it is crystal clear from the above documents that the petitioners are in physical possession for the relevant period.
(vi) As per submission made by the highly competent counsel, it is seen that the said subject matter of the property has not been occupied by the respondents. It is also seen that that there is no fencing around the land and no indication board / sign board have been erected to show that the property belongs to the Housing Board / third respondent herein. Since no documentary proof had been shown to indicate that the petitioners have been paid compensation and to show that they are not in physical possession of the property, the petitioners are entitled to obtain relief under section 24(2) of the New Act under justifiable grounds.
20. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either sides and on perusing the typed set of papers and this Court's views mentioned above as (i) to (vi), this Court allows the above writ petition and declares that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, in respect of the lands of an extent of 5.86 acres comprised in S.F.No.450 situated at Telugupalayam Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioners, has lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013).
21. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
22 /12/ 2014
(1/2)
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
Note : Issue order copy on 24.02.2015
r n s
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 035.
3.The Executive Engineer /
Administrative Officer,
Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB,
Tatabad, Coimbatore District.
4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),
Housing Schemes Unit - III,
Tatabadi, Coimbatore - 12.
Order made in
W.P.No.17415 of 2014
22 /12/2014
(1/2)