Madras High Court
B.Sekaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 July, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014 & W.M.P.No.27860 of 2016
B.Sekaran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated
by the respondents under the Land Acqusition Act, 1894 with respect to the
lands comprised in S.Nos.169 & 170/2, Sevvaipettai Village,
Thirurkuppam, Thirur Post, Thiruvallur District 602025 measuring a total
extent of 2.40 acres have lapsed as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act no.30 of 2013).
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Abishek
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, AGP, for R1 & R2
: Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, for R3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'old Act') in respect of the lands comprised in S.Nos.169 & 170/2, measuring a total extent of 2.40 acres, situated at Sevvaipettai Village, Thiruvallur District as lapsed as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013) (in short 'new Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject lands were originally purchased by the petitioner's mother namely, Saradambal in the year 1983 and pursuant to the said purchase, she obtained layout approval for the said lands as early as in the year 1984 and she has been carrying out agricultural activities in the subject lands. While so, the respondents have decided to 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 acquire a large extent of lands including the subject lands for the purpose of forming and implementation of the Sevvapettai Railway Station Scheme and the 1st respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the old Act on 02.08.1984 and declaration under Section 6 on 19.08.1987 to that effect and subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued an award in Award No.5/1989 dated 18.08.1989, fixing a compensation amount of Rs.69,060.10/- for the subject lands. Pursuant to which, though the petitioner's mother made several representations seeking to exclude the subject lands from the above said acquisition, they evoked no response Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner's mother filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.5461 of 2000 and this Court, directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders, and pursuant to such direction, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner's mother, vide proceedings dated 14.11.2000. While such being the case, the new Act came into force from 01.01.2014 and under the provisions of the said new Act, when an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act, but the physical possession of the lands has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Hence, in order to avail the benefit of 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013, the petitioner has come up with this Writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1984 and the award was also came to be passed in the year 1989, neither the possession was taken over by the respondents nor the compensation amount was paid by them and till date, the petitioner and other legal heirs of the said Saradambal are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Hence, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents as against the petitioner's mother stands lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the patta lands measuring an extent of 147.16 acres, including the lands of the petitioner's mother have been acquired for the purpose of development of Sevvapet Railway Station Scheme and the necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved, vide G.O.Ms.No.605, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.08.1984 and after observing the requisite formalities, the Declaration under Section 6 of the old act was approved, vide G.O.Ms.No.1297, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 19.08.1987 and subsequently, an award in Award No.5/1989 dated 18.08.1989 was passed and thereafter, as the land owner has refused to receive the notice under Section 12(2) of the old Act, requesting the land owner to receive the compensation amount of Rs.69,060.10 within 7 days from the date of notice and as the land owner did not turned up to receive the award amount, the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the subject lands, after duly obtaining necessary witness and after following the due process of law and handed over the same to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 12.01.1990 and as on date, the possession vests with the Housing Board and the necessary mutations were also made in the revenue records and the patta in respect of the subject lands also stands in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Pursuant to the same, a layout has been prepared for developing plots and the same has been approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, vide DTCP No.4/2013. While such being the case, the petitioner's request for re- 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 conveyance of the subject lands cannot be acceded to, as the lands are very much required for the implementation of the scheme and further, the petitioner's request for re-conveyance has already been rejected by the 1st respondent, vide communication Letter No.LAI(1)/5260/2001-02 dated 14.01.2000. Therefore, the present Writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking to declare the entire acquisition proceedings as lapsed as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act no.30 of 2013), has no merit, as the possession of the subject lands has already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same has been handed over to the Housing Board as early as on 12.01.1990 and the compensation amount has also been deposited in the Sub Court, Thiruvallur as per Section 30 & 31(2) of the old Act by the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), vide proceedings No.Rc.No.6771/1981/C1 dated 27.03.2015. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others etc., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, in which, the very same issue fell for consideration and the relevant paragraph in the above said judgment is extracted hereunder:
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word or used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as nor or as and. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-
deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014
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 subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time- barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, it is clear that, once possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013('Act 2013'). Hence, the prayer sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be maintainable and accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this Writ petition. 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent reiterated the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
6. The major grievance of the petitioner is that, though the lands of the petitioner's mother were acquired under the old Act and the notification under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued in the year 1984 and 1987 respectively, and pursuant to the above, award was also passed as early as in the year 1989, till date, neither the petitioner nor his family members were paid with the compensation and till date, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Hence, he has come up with this Writ petition to avail the benefit of Section 24 (2) of the new Act.
7. Though the aforesaid decision is relied upon by either side in support of their case, the fact remains that the after following the due process of law, the Land Acquisition Officer, handed over the possession of the subject lands to the Tamilnadu Housing Board as early as on 12.01.1990 and as on date, the possession vests with the Housing Board and the patta in respect of the same also stands in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014 Board and the compensation amount has also been deposited in the Sub Court, Thiruvallur in terms of Section 30 & 31(2) of the old Act by the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), as is evident from the proceedings dated 27.03.2015.
8. Though the petitioner claims that possession has not been taken till date and compensation was also not paid, the materials placed before this Court by the respondents conclusively prove that both the limbs of Section 24 (2) with regard to taking possession as also payment of compensation have been duty complied with. It is further evident from the materials that since the petitioner did not come forward to receive the compensation as mandated u/s 31 (2) of Act, 1894, the respondents deposited the said amount in the Court and possession was handed over to the Housing Board as early as on 12.01.1990. To substantiate the same, on the directions of this Court, the respondents produced the Transfer of Charge Certificate before this Court, which was duly signed by the Special Revenue Inspector and the Head Surveyor, on behalf of the Housing Board and the same was also shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31765 of 2014
9. From the above, it is evident that the compensation amount has been deposited and possession has also been taken by the respondents and handed over to the Housing Board. That being the case, the decision in Indore Development Authority case (supra) would definitely enure to the benefit of the respondents and, therefore, there would be no question of lapse of the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner seeking to invoke Section 24 (2) of the Act is wholly misconceived and unsustainable and the contention deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the prayer as sought for in the present petition cannot be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.07.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme,
Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
W.P.No.31765 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014 & W.M.P.No.27860 of 2016
11.07.2022
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis