Madras High Court
M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 5 January, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 07.12.2021
Pronounced on : 05.01.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, 2108 to 2113 of 2018,
9882 to 9888, 24314, 27683, 27574, 27579, 27593, 27626,
27651, 27694, 27722, 33671, 27641, 33677, 33687, 33690, 33697,
33700, 33673, 33678, 33681, 33683 and 33685 of 2018
and
WMP.Nos.33162, 33163, 33164 & 33165 of 2017 and
5425, 5430 & 5431 of 2019 and 2620 to 2625 of 2018 and
5438, 5442, 5443, 5448, 5454, 5458 & 5459 of 2019 and
11823 to 11829 of 2018 and 28330, 32211, 32104, 32117, 32155,
32169, 32201, 32218, 32239, 39079, 32179, 39093, 39094,
39096, 39097, 39099, 39080, 39085, 39089, 39091 & 39092 of 2018
WP.No.30408 of 2017
M/s.Ultratech Cement Limited,
Rep. by its Executive President,
(Unit:Reddipalayam Cement Works),
Reddipalayam Post,
Ariyalur District 621 704,
Tamilnadu ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Industries (MMA2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Special Tashildar,
(Land Acquisition),
Tamilnadu Cements Corpn Ltd.,
Ariyalur, Perambalur District,
Page 1 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
(appointed to perform the functions
of the Collector under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1984)
3.M/s.Tamilnadu Cement Corporation,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Second Floor, LLA Building,
735, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002 ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the notification
issued under Section 4(1) in GO.Ms.No.270 dated 28.12.1995 and
Section 6 declaration issued by the first respondent in
GO.Ms.No.26 Industries (MII) dated 18.02.1997 in respect of the
land measuring 7.73 acres (3.13 hect.) in SF.Nos.492/2A, 492/3,
492/4A, 493/4, 493/5A2, 493/7, 508/4, 508/5, 508/7A in
Valajanagaram Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Perambalur District as
having lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioners
in all WP's : Mr.Rahul Balaji
For Respondents
in all WP's
For R1 & 2 : Mr.C.Kathiravan,
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.R.Viduthalai,
Page 2 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sivaji
COMMON ORDER
All the writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioners' respective lands as having lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The third respondent Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is owned by the Government of Tamilnadu for the purpose of production, manufacture, process and sale of cement, lime and limestone and other by-products. The first respondent issued GO.Ms.No.921 Industries Department dated 25.08.1986 reserving an extent of 1283.62 acres of land in Ariyalur Taluk for exploitation of limestone for the third respondent. Based on the request of the third respondent, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Old Act') and Page 3 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Old Act during the period from 21.09.1993 to 24.11.1998. Thereafter, declarations were made under Section 6 of the Old Act and published during the period 08.11.1994 to 24.12.1999. All the writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not paid compensation amount and the possession of their respective land has not been taken and as such the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as 'the New Act') based on the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C)Nos.29114 and 29115 of 2008 to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings by way of various writ petitions including the notification published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Old Act. All the writ petitions were dismissed and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) Nos. While dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had given liberty to all the petitioners to invoke Section 24 (2) of the New Act before this Page 4 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Court or before appropriate forum. However, its maintainability at the instance of the subsequent purchasers and others shall also be considered in accordance with law and the Court may also call for original records pertaining to the acquisition. With the said liberty, all the appeals were dismissed.
3. Mr.Rahul Balaji, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the award in the acquisition proceedings as contemplated under Section 11 of the Old Act stood passed five years before commencement of the New Act i.e. 01.01.2014 and neither the possession of the lands has been taken nor has compensation been paid to the petitioners. Awards were passed between 07.11.1996 to 28.11.2001 and five years or more have already lapsed since the date of passing of award has been 01.01.2014. The physical possession of the lands in question is still with the respective petitioners and no compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners. By way of additional affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the award was required to be passed within a period of two years under Section 11-A of the Old Act from the date of notification under Section 6 of the Old Act. The period of interim orders prohibiting the Page 5 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch passing of award has to be excluded while calculating two years period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 08.12.2006, stayed the dispossession where possession already not taken and as such there was no stay on the passing of awards. Even in the first round of litigation before this Court, the interim order of dispossession alone passed and even then, no awards were passed in respect of the subject lands which were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. As per the new Act, under Section 25, an award is required to be passed within a period of one year from the notification under Section 18 of the New Act. In case of this area of 271 acres of the lands, award should have been passed within a period of one year from the date of disposal of the appeal dated 05.05.2017. No stay was existing in respect of land admeasuring 203.61 acres. The details of the same are mentioned below.
S. Block W.P.No. Filing Date Date of Area in Award Status
No. Interim Stay Acre
1 3 9888/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 8.80 No award
2 4 9887/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 9.97 No award
3 5 9882/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 9.79 No award
4 6 9885/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 10.42 No award
5 8 9886/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 21.87 No award
Page 6 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch S. Block W.P.No. Filing Date Date of Area in Award Status No. Interim Stay Acre 6 15 9884/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 6.92 No award Total land where stay orders were passed before 67.77 expiry of one year of disposal of Civil Appeal on 05.05.2017 7 9 27641/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 17.03 No award 8 7 27626/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 9.97 No award 9 21 33678/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 21.29 No award 10 22 27574/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 25.62 No award 11 23 27593/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 26.03 No award 12 24 27651/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 25.54 No award 13 25 27683/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 24.25 No award 14 26 27722/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 31.80 No award 15 27 24314/2018 16.07.2018 17.09.2018 13.65 No award 16 30 27694/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 2.17 No award 17 37 27579/2018 16.07.2018 24.10.2018 6.26 No award Total land where no stay orders were passed during 203.61 one year of disposal of Civil Appeal on 05.05.2017 Grand Total Land 271.38 No Award Passed Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed for the above mentioned extents of lands, as no award has been passed within a period of one year from the date of disposal of the civil appeals i.e. from 05.05.2017. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 7 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch of India in the case of Executive Engineer Gosokhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara Maharashtra Vidhrabha Irrigation Development Authority Vs. Mahesh & Others in SLP.Nos.13093 and 13094 of 2018 dated 10.11.2021, wherein it is held as follows:
The limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force.
Period during which the Court order would inhibit action on the part of the authorities to proceed with the making of the award would be excluded while computing the period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
.............. Given this trend in interpretation, the words “all the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation” must not be imputed a restricted understanding of the word ‘relating’ only to the substantial provisions on calculation of compensation, that is, Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act. Rather, the expression should be given an expansive meaning so as to include the provision on limitation period for calculation of compensation, that is, Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
........... Section 25 is a rule of procedure immediately following Section 24 and a part of fasciculus Page 8 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch of “all the provisions”, from Sections 25 to 30, “relating to determination of compensation”. Hence, the expression “all the provisions relating to the determination of compensation” under the 2013 Act will encompass Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
3.1 He further submitted that the deposits in the treasury have been made contrary to the requirements under Section 31 of the Old Act and no steps for possession of the lands have been taken for the period not covered by interim orders. In respect of the following land parcels of the petitioners, and the award amount has been deposited in the State Treasury.
S. Block W.P.No. Filing Date Stay Order Exten Remarks No. No. t 1 1 33683/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 7.76 Award passed 2 2 33681/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 6.14 Award passed 3 10 9883/2018 13.04.2018 23.04.2018 21.01 Award passed 4 11 33671/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 14.14 Award passed 5 12 33690/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 19.88 Award passed 6 13 33673/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 8.71 Award passed 7 14 33700/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 10.44 Award passed 8 17 33687/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 16.65 Award passed 9 18 33685/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 25.18 Award passed Page 9 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch S. Block W.P.No. Filing Date Stay Order Exten Remarks No. No. t 10 19 33677/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 12.11 Award passed 11 20 33697/2018 03.08.2018 18.12.2018 15.94 Award passed Total Land Award Passed 157.96 3.2 He further submitted that after passing of awards, compensation was not tendered by the first respondent to the petitioners and it was only ordered to be kept in revenue deposit. During the inspection of the revenue records, found that the compensation had been kept in revenue deposit. However, the first respondent failed to produce any cogent proof to demonstrate that the respondents were prevented by conditions specified under Section 31(2) of the Old Act, owing to which the deposits were made directly to the State Treasury. The respondents never tendered the amount of compensation to the petitioners after disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The possession of the respective lands also has not been taken over despite there being no interim order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Page 10 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., wherein it is held as follows:
119. It is apparent from the Act of 1894 that the payment of compensation is dealt with in Part V, whereas acquisition is dealt with in Part II. Payment of compensation is not made pre-condition for taking possession under Section 16 or under Section 31 read with Section 34. Possession can be taken before tendering the amount except in the case of urgency, and deposit (of the amount) has to follow in case the Collector is prevented from making payment in exigencies as provided in Section 31(3). What follows is that in the event of not fulfilling the obligation to pay or to deposit under Section 31(1) and 31(2), the Act of 1894 did not provide for lapse of land acquisition proceedings, and only increased interest follows with payment of compensation.
120. The terms of object clause No. 18 (of the Statement of Objects and Reasons) to the Act of 2013 reveals that the option of taking possession (of acquired land) upon making of an award the new law would be available in the cases of land acquisition under the Act of 1894 where award has not been made, Page 11 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch or possession of land has not been taken. It is apparent that the benefits under the Act of 2013 envisage that where the award had not been made, or award has been made, but possession has not been taken (because once possession is taken, land is vests in the State) there can be lapse of acquisition. No doubt about that payment is also to be made: that issue is taken care of by the provision of payment of interest under Section 34: also, in case of non-deposit- in respect of majority of holdings in a given award, higher compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to all beneficiaries as on the date of notification under Section 4 issued under the Act of 1894.
3.3 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are not subsequent purchasers of the lands in question and as such they are entitled to have relief under the provisions of the New Act. The first respondent granted permission to the third respondent to purchase the subject land admeasuring 859 acres, out of which 429 acres of land involved in this batch of petitions, were purchased by the petitioners prior to 13.10.1993 i.e. date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Old Act. The respondents failed and neglected to Page 12 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch take requisite actions for acquisition proceedings to a logical end despite there being no restrain order, especially after disposal of the appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 05.05.2017. At the outset, the purpose for which land acquisition proceedings were initiated, no more remains the public purpose within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the New Act. The third respondent is not involved in any of the functions which can be said to be strategic purposes vital to the State and for infrastructure projects where the benefits accrue to the general public.
Hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the first respondent filed counter and Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the first respondent issued GO.Ms.No.921 Industries Department dated 25.08.1986 reserving an extent of 1283.62 acres of land in Ariyalur for exploitation of limestone for third respondent. Three notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Old Act during the period 21.09.1993 to 24.11.1998. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were published during the period 08.11.1994 to 24.12.1999. Some of the petitioners have challenged the acquisition Page 13 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch proceedings and stay of the dispossession of the lands was granted by this Court and subsequently all the writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, they filed writ appeals and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals by common order dated 16.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.20342 of 2006 and granted stay of the dispossession of the land. Finally, on 05.05.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the Civil Appeals and had granted liberty to file application under Section 24 of the New Act before this Court or appropriate authority. The physical possession of the subject land could not have been taken in view of the interim order granted by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In pursuant to the award Nos.1 of 1996 dated 07.11.1996, 1 of 1998 dated 10.12.1998, 7 of 1999 dated 06.04.1999 and No.5 of 2000 dated 28.11.2000, the compensation amount has been deposited as revenue deposit by the second respondent in accordance with law. Thereafter, all the petitioners were duly served notice under Section 12 (2) of the Old Act on 07.11.1996, 10.12.1998, 06.04.1999 and 28.11.2000. All the petitioners had received the same. Therefore, the question of applicability Page 14 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch of Section 24(2) of the New Act does not arise. In support of his contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc. 4.1 He further submitted that after initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, the petitioners started to purchase the lands, thereby meddling and stalling the acquisition proceedings. If the period covered under the interim stay is taking into account for the purpose of determining the period of five years prior to the commencement of the New Act, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke provisions under Section 24(2) of the New Act. Therefore, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4.2 Reiterating the acquisition proceedings by the first respondent, the third respondent filed counter and Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that in view of the interim Page 15 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch orders passed in the writ petitions, writ appeals and civil appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no award could be passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek relief as contemplated under Section 24 (2) of the New Act which deals only with the land acquisition proceedings for which award under Section 11 of the Old Act has been made. The present cases filed only under Section 24 (1) (a) of the New Act and the petitioners deserve only compensation under the New Act as provided therein. The question of lapse of the land acquisition proceedings does not arise in these cases. Though the award was passed under the Old Act, the question of Section 11-A of the Old Act cannot be applicable in view of the interim orders were in operation. In fact, some of the petitioners have filed writ petitions in WP.Nos.1369 of 1996, 1370 of 1996, 11510 of 1995, 1367 of 1996, 15692 of 1995, 11474 of 1995 and 11476 of 1995 and this Court granted interim stay and admitted those writ petitions. Thereafter, all the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 16.12.2002 and aggrieved by the same, seven writ appeals were filed and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court granted interim stay. However, by the common order dated 16.10.2006, all the writ appeals were dismissed and they preferred Page 16 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by order dated 08.12.2006, interim stay was granted.
4.3 The Senior Counsel further submitted that in view of the interim order, the land acquisition proceedings could not be continued further. Consequently, no award could be passed under Section 11 of the Old Act and consequently possession of the land in question could not be taken over. While dismissing the writ appeals, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioners suffer from two additional disadvantages. Though they sought permission under Section 37-A of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, in their own name, they purchased the said land admittedly in the names of their subsidiary companies by name M/s.Anoopama Investments Limited, M/s.Poonam Finance Limited and M/s.Kanika Investments Limited. In other words, the Companies in whose names M/s.Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited purchased the lands, did not enjoy the permission under Section 37-A of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and the subsidiary companies have also not challenged the acquisition proceedings. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Page 17 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch India had given liberty to petitioners to file application under Section 24 of the New Act and not specified as Section 24(2) of the New Act. As per Section 24(1)(a) of the New Act, the petitioners deserve only compensation. Therefore, Section 11-A of the Old Act has no application in the present cases as no period of interim order in these cases in as much less than two years as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Old Act. If no awards were passed on or before 01.01.2014, the compensation shall be payable under the new Act and cannot be treated as lapsed as claimed by the petitioners.
5. Heard, Mr.Rahul Balaji, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, and Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent.
6. M/s.Ultratech Cements Limited, M/s.Ramco Cement Limited and M/s.Dalmia Cement Limited are the petitioners in all the writ petitions. These writ petitions are under two categories. 1) The writ petitions where award has been passed. 2) The writ petitions where no award has been passed.
Page 18 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
7. The third respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is a Government Company wholly owned by the Government of Tamilnadu. It obtained industrial licence to set up cement factory in Ariyalur Taluk of then Trichy District. After carrying out necessary prospecting operations, submitted a report and requested the sanction of the Government for acquisition of lands to an extent of 1868.96 acres of patta land and to an extent of 444.07 acres of poramboke land for the purpose of carrying out mining operations and allied activities. By order passed in GO.Ms.No.679 Industrial Department dated 26.05.1977, the Government accepted the request for acquisition of the land situated in various villages of Ariyalur District. On the request of the third respondent, the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Old Act. The first respondent issued GO Ms.No.921 Industries Department dated 25.08.1986 reserving an extent of 1283.62 acres of land in Ariyalur Taluk for exploitation of limistone for the third respondent and based on the request of the third respondent, the above acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Old Act. Three notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Old Act during the period 21.09.1993 to 24.11.1998 by the notifications Nos.11(2)/Ind/4833/39 Page 19 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch dated 21.09.1995, No.11(2)/Ind/168/96 dated 28.12.1995 and No.11(2)/Ind/ 2158/98 dated 24.11.1998. Declarations made under Section 6 of the Old Act were published by the notifications Nos.2(D) 182 Industries (MIE.2) Department dated 08.11.1994, 26 Ind (MII) dated 18.02.1997, 70 Ind. (MII) dated 09.04.1997 and No.979 Industries (MIE) Department dated 24.12.1999 i.e. from 08.11.1994 to 24.12.1999.
8.Already the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings i.e. 4(1) notification and declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act. All the writ petitions were dismissed and while pending the writ petitions, there was interim order of stay. However, all the writ petitions were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, they preferred writ appeals. While pending the writ appeals, there was interim order of stay and subsequently all the writ appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and while pending the SLP, there was interim order of stay. Finally on 05.05.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals and granted liberty to file application under Section 24 of the New Act before this Court or appropriate authority and ordered that Page 20 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch with the aforesaid liberty, appeals were dismissed. The interim order to the effect that if the appellants are in possession shall not be dispossessed is vacated. Further held that “find no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court”. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act in respect of the subject property are upheld.
9. The petitioners have raised grounds that though the interim order of dispossession alone was granted by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the respondents did not pass any award within the period of two years from the date of declaration made under Section 6 of the Old Act. Even in the case of award passed, no compensation amount has been deposited and no possession has been taken over till today. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Act. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 hereunder:
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1
of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain Page 21 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch cases:-
(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.
10. In some of the cases, no award has been passed in view of the interim order of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The above provision deals with land acquisition proceedings for which award under Section 11 of the Old Act has been made. The liberty has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to file an application under Section 24 of the New Act. All the writ petitions are filed under Section 24(1)(a) of the New Act and the petitioners are entitled only for compensation under the New Act as provided therein. The question of lapse of land acquisition proceedings does not arise in these cases. Page 22 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Though award was passed under the Old Act, the question of Section 11-A of the Old Act cannot be applicable in view of the interim orders were in operation. That apart, while dismissing the writ appeals filed by the petitioners, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
Before concluding, we may have to add that insofar as the appeals of M/s.Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited are concerned, the appellant suffers from two additional disadvantages. Though they sought permission under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, in their name, they purchased the lands admittedly, in the name of their subsidiary Companies by name M/s.Anoopama Investments Limited, M/s.Poonam Finance Limited and M/s.Kanika Investments Limited. In other words, the Companies in whose names M/s.Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd., purchased the lands, did not enjoy the permission under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and the subsidiary Companies have also not challenged the acquisition proceedings.Page 23 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
11. Section 11-A of the Old Act has no application in these cases as the non stay period is much less than two years as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Old Act. In all these petitions, no awards were passed on or before 01.01.2014 and hence only the compensation shall be payable as per the New Act and it cannot be treated as lapsed as claimed by the petitioners. In the award passed cases as per award Nos.1 of 1996 dated 07.11.1996, 1 of 1998 dated 10.12.1998, 7 of 1999 dated 06.04.1999 and No.5 of 2000 dated 28.11.2000, the entire compensation amounts in respect of respective subject lands have been deposited as revenue deposits by the second respondent in accordance with law. Thereafter, all the petitioners were duly served notice under Section 12(2) of the New Act. Therefore, the ground of compensation amount has not been deposited does not arise. In all these writ petitions following details in respect of date of award, date of remittance of compensation and period of interim orders as per records, furnished as follows: Page 24 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch ULTRA TECH CEMENT Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Total period When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award from the date the covered compensation Village has been passed of award to possession by was paid passed date of taken interim RFCTLARR order / Act-2013 disposs-
Y/M/D ession
1 20 30408/17 YES 31.12.99 14/00/00 does not Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- arise ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
2 1 30409/17 YES 07.11.96 17/01/24 does not Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- arise ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
3 59 30410/17 YES 28.11.2000 13/00/10 does not Disposs- Compensation
Kairalabath arise ession amount kept
in revenue
deposit
4 34 30411/17 YES 31.12.99 14/00/00 does not Disposs- Compensation
Pudupal- arise ession amount kept
ayam in revenue
deposit
Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and
No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award
interim order of period by stay amount
from the date compensa- covered by order
of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D 1 30408/17 1.WP.No.8981/97-31.12.1999 31.03.2000 13/07/06 0/05/24 3.13.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1081 days) 6,02,754/-
2.WA.No.1052/03 – 15.03.2003 1.02/11/15 Page 25 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D to 16.10.2006 (1321 days) 2.03/07/11
3.SLP.No.20342/2006-21.12.06 3.07/00/10 to 01.01.14 (2568 days) Total 4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017 4.13/07/06 (1219 days) 2 30409/17 1.WP.No.3632/97-17.03.1997 1.05/08/29 24.09.97 16/04/20 0/09/24 2.68.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2100 days) 2.03/07/11 3,65,811/-
2.WA.No.1055/03 – 05.03.2003 3.07/00/10
to 16.10.2006 (1322 days) Total
3.SLP.No.20342/2006-21.12.06 4.16/04/20
to 01.01.14 (2568 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
3 30410/17 1.WP.No.10682/2000-28.11.2000 1.02/00/18 05.08.2002 12/08/2009 0/04/01 3.05.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (748 days) 2.03/07/11 3,43,183/-
2.WA.No.1054/03 – 05.03.2003 3.07/00/10
to 16.10.2006 (1321 days) Total
3.SLP.No.20342/2006-21.12.06 4.12/08/09
to 01.01.14 (2568 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
4 30411/17 1.WP.No.10939/97-31.12.1999 1.02/11/15 18.04.2000 13/07/06 0/05/24 0.85.5 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1081 days) 2.03/07/11 65,448/-
2.WA.No.1053/03 – 05.03.2003 3.07/00/10
to 16.10.2006 (1322 days) Total
3.SLP.No.20342/2006-21.12.06 4.13.07/06
to 01.01.14 (2568 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
Page 26 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch RAMCO CEMENTS Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Total period When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award from the date the covered compensation Village has been passed of award to possession by was paid passed date of taken interim RFCTLARR order / Act-2013 disposs-
Y/M/D ession
1 34 2108/18 YES 6.4.99 14/08/25 does not Disposs- Compensation
Pudupal- arise ession amount kept
ayam in revenue
deposit
2 28 2109/18 YES 6.4.99 14/08/25 does not Disposs- Compensation
Kairalabath arise ession amount kept
in revenue
deposit
3 36 2110/18 YES 3/99 14/10/12 does not Disposs- Compensation
Pudupal- 19.2.99 arise ession amount kept
ayam in revenue
deposit
4 33 2111/18 YES 19.2.99 does not Disposs- Compensation
Pudupal- arise ession amount kept
ayam in revenue
deposit
5 38 2112/18 YES 19.2.99 does not Disposs- Compensation
Reddi- arise ession amount kept
palayam in revenue
deposit
6 35 2113/18 YES 6.4.99 14/08/25 does not Disposs- Compensation
Pudupal- arise ession amount kept
ayam in revenue
deposit
Page 27 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D 1 2108/18 1.WP.No.5844/99-07.04.99 24.06.99 14/04/00 0/04/25 2.21.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1349 days) 1,82,860/-
2.WA.No.1069/03 – 05.03.2003 1.03/08/09
to 16.10.2006 (1321 days) 2.03/07/11
3.SLP.No.20097/2006-21.12.06 3.07/00/10
to 01.01.14 (2568 days) Total
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017 4.14/04/00
(1219 days)
2 2109/18 1.WP.No.5843/99-12.01.1999 1.03/08/9 30.06.99 14/04/00 0/04/25 0.96.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1434 days) 2.03/07/11 78,447/-
2.WA.No.1068/03 – 05.03.2003 3.07/00/10
to 16.10.2006 (1321 days) Total
3.SLP.No.20097/2006-21.12.06 4.14/04/00
to 05.05.17 (3788 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
3 2110/18 1.WP.No.2126/99-19.02.99 03/09/27 13.07.99 0.99.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1396 days) 2,52,102/-
2.WA.No.128/10 – 28.01.2010
3.SLP.No.20097/2006
to 05.05.17 ( days)
4 2111/18 1.WP.No.2125/99-19.02.1999 03/09/27 30.06.99 2.37.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1396 days) 42,095/-
2.WA.No.127/2010 – 28.01.2010
3.SLP.No.20097/2006-05.05.17
( days)
5 2112/18 1.WP.No.2124/99-19.02.1999 03/09/27 08.09.99 0.86.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1396 days) 90,991/-
2.WA.No.126/2010 – 28.01.2010
3.SLP.No.20097/2006-05.05.17
( days)
6 2113/18 1.WP.No.5845/99-07.04.99 1.03/08/09 24.06.99 14/04/00 0/04/25 2.06.5 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1349 days) 2.03/07/11 1,62,497/-
Page 28 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D
2.WA.No.1070/03 – 05.03.2003 3.07/00/10 to 16.10.2006 (1321 days) Total
3.SLP.No.20097/2006-21.12.06 4.14/04/00 to 01.01.14 (2568 days) 4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017 (1219 days) DALMIA CEMENTS Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Total period When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award from the date the covered compensation Village has been passed of award to possession by was paid passed date of taken interim RFCTLARR order / Act-2013 disposs-
Y/M/D ession
1 11 33671/18 YES 17.7.97 16/05/14 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
2 13 33673/18 YES 17.7.97 16/05/14 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
3 19 33677/18 YES 23.02.2000 14/10/08 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
4 2 33681/18 YES 29.11.96 17/01/02 - Disposs- Compensation
Page 29 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Total period When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award from the date the covered compensation Village has been passed of award to possession by was paid passed date of taken interim RFCTLARR order / Act-2013 disposs-
Y/M/D ession
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
5 1 33683/18 YES 7.11.96 17/01/24 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
6 18 33685/18 YES 6.7.2000 13/05/25 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
7 17 33687/18 YES 13.01.2000 13/11/18 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
8 12 33690/18 YES 19.7.97 16/05/12 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
9 20 33697/18 YES 31.12.99 14/00/00 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
10 21 33698/18 YES 28.06.2000 13/06/03 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
11 14 33700/18 YES 17.7.97 16/05/14 - Disposs- Compensation
Valajana- ession amount kept
garam in revenue
deposit
Page 30 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D 1 33671/18 1.WP.No.13253/95-17.07.97 24.09.97 16/00/21 0/04/23 5.71.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1978 days) 8,14,459/-
2.WA.No.1154/03 – 17.03.2003 1.05/04/29
to 16.10.2006 (1309 days) 2.03/06/29
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 3.07/00/23
to 01.01.14 (2581 days) Total
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017 4.16/00/21
(1219 days)
2 33673/18 1.WP.No.13251/95-17.07.97 1.05/04/29 19.11.97 16/00/21 0/04/23 3.53.5 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1978 days) 2.03/06/29 4,80,366/-
2.WA.No.1153/03 – 17.03.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1309 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.16/00/21
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
3 33677/18 1.WP.No.17716/97-26.03.99 1.03/08/20 31.03.2000 13/10/10 01/11/28 4.89.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1361 days) 2.03/00/27 6,46,895/-
2.WA.No.2892/03 – 19.09.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1123 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.13/10/10
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
4 33681/18 1.WP.No.6485/95-29.11.96 1.06/00/17 24.09.97 16/08/28 0/04/04 2.48.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (2208 days) 2.03/07/18 4,34,431/-
2.WA.No.872/03 – 28.02.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1326 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.16/08/28
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
Page 31 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D 5 33683/18 1.WP.No.6484/95-07.11.96 1.06/01/09 24.09.97 16/11/05 0/02/19 2.26.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2230 days) 2.03/09/03 3,16,764/-
2.WA.No.89/03 – 13.01.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1372 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.16/11/05
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
6 33685/18 1.WP.No.17715/95-06.07.2000 1.02/05/10 20.03.2001 12/7/2000 0/05/25 10.18.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (893 days) 2.03/00/27 10,00,692/-
2.WA.No.2894/03 – 19.09.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1124 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.12/07/00
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
7 33687/18 1.WP.No.17718/95-13.01.2000 1.02/11/03 31.03.2000 13/00/23 01/10/25 6.74.5 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1068 days) 2.03/00/27 5,82,472/-
2.WA.No.581/03 – 19.09.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1123 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.13/00/23
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
8 33690/18 1.WP.No.13254/95-19.07.97 1.05/04/27 19.11.97 15/06/17 0/10/25 8.02.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1979 days) 2.03/00/27 10,85,478/-
2.WA.No.2884/03 – 19.09.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1123 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.15/06/17
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
9 33697/18 1.WP.No.17717/97-31.12.99 1.02/11/15 31.03.2000 13/08/06 0/04/24 6.71.5 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1081 days) 2.03/07/28 13,31,147/-
Page 32 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which Total period Date of What was Total period Extent and No interim order was in force covered by Remittance the total not covered award interim order of period by stay amount from the date compensa- covered by order of award to tion amount interim order Y/M/D RFCTLARR if any Act-2013 Y/M/D Y/M/D
2.WA.No.580/03 – 18.02.2003 3.07/00/23 to 16.10.2006 (1336 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.13/08/06 to 01.01.14 (2581 days) 4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017 (1219 days) 10 33698/18 1.WP.No.17719/97-28.06.2000 1.02/05/18 20.03.2001 13/02/09 0/03/24 8.66.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (901 days) 2.03/07/28 17,75,596/-
2.WA.No.582/03 – 18.02.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1336 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.13/02/09
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
11 33700/18 1.WP.No.13252/95-17.07.97 1.05/04/29 19.11.97 16/00/21 0/03/23 4.22.0 hec
to 16.12.2002 (1978 days) 2.03/06/29 5,70,541/-
2.WA.No.1155/03 – 17.03.2003 3.07/00/23
to 16.10.2006 (1309 days) Total
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 4.16/00/21
to 01.01.14 (2581 days)
4.02.01.2014 to 05.05.2017
(1219 days)
DALMIA CEMENTS
Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Whether When was Whether Whether
No Name of 24(2) Award the award possession the covered compensation
Village has been passed had been possession by was paid
passed taken taken interim
order
1 5 9882/18 NO - NO - Interim NO
Valajana- Stay
garam
Page 33 of 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Whether When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award possession the covered compensation Village has been passed had been possession by was paid passed taken taken interim order 2 10 9883/18 NO - - - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 3 15 9884/18 NO - NO NO Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 4 6 9885/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 5 8 9886/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 6 4 9887/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 7 3 9888/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days) 1 9882/18 1.WP.No.1369/96-07.02.1996 - - 7818 3.96.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2671 days)
2.WA.No.554/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) 2 9883/18 1.WP.No.1370/96-07.02.1996 - - 7734 8.49.5 hec Page 34 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days) to 16.12.2002 (2588 days)
2.WA.No.559/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1344 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) 3 9884/18 1.WP.No.11510/95-02.01.1996 - - 7610 2.80.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2541 days)
2.WA.No.1799/03 – 29.04.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1267 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) 4 9885/18 1.WP.No.1367/96-07.02.1996 - - 7574 4.22.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (2505 days)
2.WA.No.1800/03 – 29.04.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1267 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) 5 9886/18 1.WP.No.15692/95-15.11.1995 - - 7716 9.28.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (2588 days)
2.WA.No.873/03 – 28.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1326 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) 6 9887/18 1.WP.No.11474/95-24.08.1995 - - 7501 4.04.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2671 days)
2.WA.No.2886/03 – 19.09.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1158 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) Page 35 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days)
7 9888/18 1.WP.No.11476/95-24.08.1995 - - 7501 3.55.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (2671 days)
2.WA.No.2885/03 – 19.09.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1158 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3802 days) DALMIA CEMENTS Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Whether When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award possession the covered compensation Village has been passed had been possession by was paid passed taken taken interim order 1 22 27574/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 2 37 27579/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 3 23 27593/18 NO - - - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 4 7 27626/18 NO - - - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 5 9 27641/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Page 36 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Whether When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award possession the covered compensation Village has been passed had been possession by was paid passed taken taken interim order Valajana- Stay garam 6 24 27651/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 7 25 27683/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam 8 30 27694/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Pudu- Stay palayam 9 26 27722/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days) 1 27574/18 1.WP.No.17720/97-25.02.1998 - - 6883 10.36.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.882/03 – 28.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1326 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 2 27579/18 1.WP.No.17722/97-25.02.1998 - - 6883 2.58.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.824/03 – 28.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 Page 37 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days) to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 3 27593/18 1.WP.No.17721/97-25.02.1998 - - 6883 10.53.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.823/03 – 28.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1326 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 4 27626/18 1.WP.No.1368/96-07.02.1996 - - 6919 4.03.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1773 days)
2.WA.No.555/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 5 27641/18 1.WP.No.15691/95-15.11.1995 - - 7715 6.88.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (2588 days)
2.WA.No.874/03 – 28.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1326 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 6 27651/18 1.WP.No.17713/97-25.02.1998 - - 6681 10.35.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.2893/03 – 19.09.2002 to 16.10.2006 (1124 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 7 27683/18 1.WP.No.17725/97-25.02.1998 - - 6902 9.81.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days) Page 38 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days)
2.WA.No.545/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 8 27694/18 1.WP.No.17714/97-25.02.1998 - - 6681 0.88.0 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.2895/03 – 19.09.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1124 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) 9 27722/18 1.WP.No.17724/97-25.02.1998 - - 6902 12.87.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.544/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days) DALMIA CEMENTS Page 39 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch Sl. Block No./ WP.No. Whether When was Whether When was Whether Whether No Name of 24(2) Award the award possession the covered compensation Village has been passed had been possession by was paid passed taken taken interim order 1 27 24314/18 NO - NO - Interim NO Valajana- Stay garam Sl. WP.No. Various periods during which When was How was What was Extent No interim order was in force the the the total compensa- compensa- period tion paid tion paid covered by interim order if any (in days) 1 24314/18 1.WP.No.17723/97-25.02.1998 - - 6902 5.52.5 hec to 16.12.2002 (1756 days)
2.WA.No.543/03 – 10.02.2003 to 16.10.2006 (1345 days)
3.SLP.No.19793/2006-08.12.06 to 05.05.2017 (3801 days)
12. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc. in CA.No.20982 of 2017 dated 08.02.2018, wherein it is held as follows:
161.Q.No.IV. Provisions of section 24(2) do not intend to cover the period spend during litigation and when the authorities have been Page 40 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch disabled to act under section 24(2) due to the final or interim order of a court or otherwise, such period has to be excluded from the period of five years as provided in section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.
Q.No.I ........... In Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 in the expression “paid”, it is not necessary that the amount should be deposited in court as provided in section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. Non- deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 dos not result in a lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Due to the failure of deposit in court, the only consequence at the most in appropriate cases may be of higher rate of interest on compensation as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act of 1894 and not lapse of acquisition.
13. In the case on hand, the compensation amounts under the Old Act were made as revenue deposits by the second respondent. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings cannot be considered as lapsed. The petitioners, after initiation of the proceedings under the Old Act as well as the Tamil Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, started to purchase the subject land thereby meddling and stalling the acquisition Page 41 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch proceedings. It amounts to defeat the public purpose. Even before purchase of the subject lands by the petitioners, the State Government had conducted a prospecting operations of the area through the State Geological Branch way back in the year 1975 and accepted the request of the Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited for the acquisition of a large extent of land for the purpose of setting up a cement factory and exploitation of limestone and it is only on coming to know of the same, the petitioners had played a pro-active role and took preemptive initiatives to acquire the land. Further, the counter filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India revealed that the Competition Commission of India has imposed a penalty of Rs.6,698/- crores against eleven private cement manufacturers including the Petitioners i.e. M/s.Madras Cements & M/s.Grasim Industries (presently M/s.Ultra Tech Cements) for indulging in a price cartel and making exorbitant profit as against their cost of production filed by the Builders Association of India which ultimately increases the project cost of Building & other infrastructure works carried out by the Public besides unemployment to the labour force. Controlling of cement price in the open market is one of the major challenges before Government as cement Page 42 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch is one of the basic input for the construction works which often affects the construction & infrastructure development works not only in Tamilnadu but all over India and many labourers lost their employment due to sudden spurt in the open market prices by the private cement manufactures on their own since having major stakeholders in the production of cement who are ultimately deciding the price of cement by forming cartilsation. With a view to curtail the cement price in open market, the first respondent contemplated to enhance its capacity in Ariyalur by setting up another 1 million tonnes per annum by calculating the mineral wealth available in disputed area. Hence, the third respondent for its future development of cement approached the State Government for reservation and for acquisition. Even before getting approval under Section 37-A of Act, 1961, one of the petitioners M/s.Dalmia Cements started purchasing the lands and are now seeking relief under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 which is wholly inapplicable. It is submitted that the petitioners i.e. M/s.Ramco Cements and M/s.Ultra Tech Cements purchased from the original land owners after the publication of the 4(1) notification of Act, 1894 which is neither tenable nor sustainable before the law.
Page 43 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch
14. The grounds raised by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions have already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., which held as follows :-
“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 Page 44 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch 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 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, Page 45 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch 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 Page 46 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch 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 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 Page 47 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch 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.”
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioners. The petitioners failed to satisfy the twin requirements under Section 24 (2) of the New Act, i.e., the physical possession of the land Page 48 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch has not been taken over and the compensation has not been paid/tendered/deposited in accordance with law. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the issues raised by the petitioners were settled and therefore, the acquisition proceedings have not been lapsed by operation of law under Section 24 (2) of the new Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As such, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
16. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
05.01.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No lok Page 49 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Industries (MMA2) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Special Tashildar, (Land Acquisition), Tamilnadu Cements Corpn Ltd., Ariyalur, Perambalur District, (appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984)
3.Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Tamilnadu Cement Corporation, Second Floor, LLA Building, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 Page 50 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, 2108 to 2113 of 2018, 9882 to 9888, 24314, 27683, 27574, 27579, 27593, 27626, 27651, 27694, 27722, 33671, 27641, 33677, 33687, 33690, 33697, 33700, 33673, 33678, 33681, 33683 and 33685 of 2018 Page 51 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.30408, 30409 to 30411 of 2017, etc batch 05.01.2022 Page 52 of 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis