Madras High Court
A.Selvaraj vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.No.11921 of 2024
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm )
W.P.No.11921 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.08.2025
Pronounced on: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.No.11921 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.13023 of 2024
1. A.Selvaraj
2. N.Rukumani
3. A.Manokaran
4. Abdul Hai
5. K.Rajammal
6. A.Ravikumar
7. Abdul Rasheed
8. Saradha
9. Krishnaveni
10. Bakialakshmi
11. Prof. R.Ethirajulu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm )
W.P.No.11921 of 2024
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition),
Housing Scheme No.3, Hudco Colony,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore 601 006.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
HUDCO Colony, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore - 601 006.
(*R3 impleaded as per order dated 06.06.2024 in WMP.No.16181 of 2024 in
W.P.No.11921 of 2024 by NSKJ) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the entire Land
Acquisition proceedings relating in Award No.3/1995, dated 20.11.1995
nd
of the 2 respondent in respect of petitioner's lands in S.F.Nos.226/1
(now 226/1B) situated at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore District to an extent of 55 cents, 50 ¾ cents, 50 ¾ cents, 28
cents and 287 Sq.ft, 41 cents, 28 cents and 287 Sq.ft, 50 ¾ cents and 17
cents being common area respectively and totally admesuring 3.22 acres
has become lapsed by virtue of the operation of the provisions contained
in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.AK.Sriram,
Senior Counsel for
Dr.Yagna Moorthi
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.D.Veerasekaran
Standing Counsel for TNHB
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed to declare the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands comprised in S.F.No.226/1 (Now 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 226/1B) situated at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, measuring an extent of 3.22 Acres covered by Award No.3/1995, dated 20.11.1995, as having lapsed in terms of sub section (2) to Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “New Act”.
2. Brief Facts:
2.1. Petitioners are the owners of lands comprised in S.F.No.226/1 (Now 226/1B), situated at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, measuring an extent of 3.22 Acres. The subject property was acquired by the petitioners vide following Sale Deeds :
S.No. Sale Deed No. and Date Extent 1 Sale Deed No. 3143 of 55 cents 1987 dated 27.07.1987 2 Sale Deed No.3147 of 50 ¾ cents 1987 dated 27.07.1987 3 Sale Deed No.3146 of 50 ¾ cents 1987 dated 27.07.1987 4 Sale Deed No.3144 of 28 cents & 287 Sq.ft 1987 dated 27.07.1987 5 Sale Deed No.3149 of 41 cents 1987 dated 27.07.1987 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 6 Sale Deed No.3145 of 28 cents & 287 Sq.ft 1987 dated 27.07.1987 7 Sale Deed No.3148 of 50 ¾ cents 1987 dated 27.07.1987
2.2. Petitioners have been in continuous possession of the subject property since their purchase made in 1987. Whileso, Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification dated 22.09.1992 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Old Act”) vide G.O.Ms.No.650 Housing and Urban Development (LA-III) Department, notifying various lands including subject lands as required for formation of Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme Phase 3. Above notification was published in the Gazette on 21.10.1992 and Tamil Newspapers on 02.01.1992. Thereafter, a notice under Section 5A of the “Old Act” was issued during February 1992 and served on petitioners sometime in April 1993, calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections. Petitioners submitted their objection to the said notice. An enquiry under Section 5A of the "Old Act" was conducted on 04.05.1993.
Petitioners reiterated their objection during the enquiry. Thereafter, a declaration dated 15.11.1993, came to be issued under Section 6 of the "Old Act" in G.O.Ms.No.939, Housing and Urban Development (LA-III) 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 Department. Above notification was challenged before this Court by petitioners 1, 3 and 6 herein in W.P.No.6887 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.1995. Writ Appeal No.977 of 1995 came to be filed challenging the above order in the writ petition.
th Writ Appeal also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.09.1997. 11 petitioner herein also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1880 of 1995 and the same was also dismissed. Writ Appeal filed challenging the order of nd dismissal of writ petition also came to be dismissed. 2 respondent passed an Award in Award No.3/1995 dated 20.11.1995.
2.3. It is submitted that petitioners were not served either with the Award or notices in terms of Section 12(2) of the Old Act.
2.4. It is submitted that possession was not taken by the State or the Housing Board pursuant to the acquisition proceedings instead petitioners continued to remain in possession of subject properties and converted the same into layouts /colonies as could be seen from the following table:
S.No. S.F.Nos. Area(Hectares) Present Colonies with Names 1 222/1 1.95.5 J.S.Garden 2 222/2 1.02.0 J.S.Garden 3 222/3 1.08.0 J.S.Garden 4 223/2 1.93.0 Sakthi Garden 5a 226/1A 1.18.0 Divine Residence 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 5b 226/1B 1.33.0 E.A.Avenue 6 226/2 2.22.0 Sasi Avenue 2.5. Property situated in S.F.No.226/2 was released to the land owners vide orders of this Court dated 30.04.2002 in W.P.No.336 to 343 of 1996. No appeal is preferred against the above order. The layout/colonies were sold. Subsequent purchasers in the layout/colonies are presently land owners and in peaceful possession and enjoyment.
S.F.No.226/1 was sub divided as 226/1A and 226/1B. Owners of plot in 226/1B formed a gated community in the name of E.S.Avenue. Compensation was not tendered much less paid to the petitioners nor deposited in the Civil Court.
2.6. Against the above background petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 24(2) of the New Act.
3. Case of the petitioners:
a. Possession of subject property was not taken by the respondents at any time.
b. Taking over of possession ought to be done in the manner explained by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (LAPSE~5 J.) vs Manoharlal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 i.e., by drawing of panchnama. 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 c. Subject property never vested with the Government inasmuch as possession was not taken in terms of Section 16 of the “Old Act”.
d. No compensation was tendered much less paid though more than 30 years have elapsed since the passing of the Award.
e. Award having been made close to 18 years prior to the commencement of the “New Act”, possession not having been taken and compensation not having been tendered/paid, acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of sub section (2) to Section 24 of the New Act.
rd f. That subject properties have been converted into layouts and 3 party interest are also involved/created.
4. Case of the Respondents:
a. Petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings earlier in W.P.No.1880 of 1995 and W.A.No.977 of 1995, writ petition and the writ appeal having been dismissed the present petition praying for declaration that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed 29 years after passing of Award ought not to be entertained.
b. That the writ petition ought not to be entertained as acquisition proceedings have been concluded long back in terms of the judgment of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Indore 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 Development.
c. Compensation amount was paid as per the Award in Award No.3/1995 dated 20.11.1995. Compensation was deposited in Civil Court in terms of Section 30 and 31(2) of the “Old Act”.
d. The plea of acquisition proceedings having lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the New Act is misconceived.
5. Hear both sides and perused materials on record.
6. Scope of Section 24(2) of “New Act“:
6.1. To resolve the controversy arising in the present writ petition, it may be necessary to understand the scope and purport of Section 24(2) of “New Act“. The said Section reads as under:
“Section 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain 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 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of the majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with provisions of this Act." 6.2. The scope of Section 24(2) of "New Act" has been examined by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (LAPSE~5 J.) vs. Manoharlal and other, cited supra, wherein while examining the correct interpretation of Section 24 of "New Act", in view of the fact that a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Neema and Ors vs State of M.P. and Ors 1 doubted the correctness of the decision in Sri Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs State of Tamil Nadu and others2, and on examining various issues arising out of Section 24 of “New Act”, arrived at the following conclusions:
"366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. 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 the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has 1 . (2016) 6 SCC 387 2 . (2015) 3 SCC 353 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. 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 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. 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 2013 Act 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.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, 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). The landowners 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 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act 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 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. 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 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned 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.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 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 2013 Act 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."
7. In the circumstances the enquiry which is to be made by this Court is limited to the question as to whether possession has been taken and compensation has been paid under the acquisition proceedings in terms of the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Indore Development cited supra.
7.1. With regard to possession it was admitted by the 1st respondent Board that possession was never taken by State nor respondent Board and possession always remained with petitioners. That apart averment in the affidavit that petitioner have been in continuous possession till date remains uncontroverted. Importantly, petitioners had also averred in the affidavit that the subject property has been converted rd into colonies and sold to 3 parties which again remains uncontroverted. It would thus be clear that possession was never taken by the State nor respondent Board under the acquisition proceedings in terms of the 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 Constitutional Bench Judgment in the case of Indore Development cited supra.
7.2. Now coming to payment of compensation while it is the case of the petitioner that compensation was neither tendered/paid to them nor deposited as contemplated under Section 30 and 31 of the "Old Act". The respondents in their counter had stated as under :
“20. I humbly submit that, the compensation amount as per the Award in No.3/95 dated 20.11.1995 was ordered and paid to the land owners. If ownership and title of the property was not proved, it was to be kept in the civil court deposit u/s 30 and 31(2) in respect of the subject lands as the ownership and the apportionment could not be decided.” 7.3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon RTI Information dated 03.10.2024, whereby petitioners were informed that documents relating to deposit of compensation with regard to Award No.3/1995 dated 20.11.1995 is not available. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
Q.No. Information Required Information Furnished
1. The Deposit of On perusal of the available compensation details and records and files in the records for award No.3 of court records, it is found 1995 dated 20.11.1995, that no document for regarding the land of deposit of the Coimbatore District, compensation amount Coimbatore North Taluk, available for the award of Villankuruchi Village No.3/995 dated 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 S.F.No.226/1. 20.11.1995.
2. If amount have been Prescribed Civil Court deposited, the concerned Deposit and investment L.A.O.P. Number to the register the being claim. maintained for accounting
3. Whether any L.A.O.P. Is purpose for cases which pending regarding deposit has reference to case of amount in court for the Number. S.F.No. Details above subject. and Award Number details are not being maintained.
Thus this court ascertain the deposit of compensation details and records for ward No.3/95 dated 20.11.1995 regarding the land in S.F.No.226/1.
Vilankuruchi Village,
Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
7.4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that a challan was deposited with SBI, Coimbatore, to show payment of compensation. A perusal of the challan would show that the Award number referred therein is 3/1994 and 4/1995 whereas award in relation to subject acquisition is Award No.3/1995. The above discrepancy was sought to be explained by learned counsel for respondent by stating that the reference to Award No.3/1994 was a clerical error and it actually relates to Award No.3/1995 and submitted a statement giving the breakup of payment made to various land holders including the subject property comprised in S.No.226/1 and 226/2.
15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024
8. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that there has been only one deposit in the name of Special Tahsildhar (LA) in relation to Award No.3/1994 and not Award No.3/1995. With regard to submission of clerical mistake, no explanation was offered as to how compensation paid under the challan relates to Award No.3/1995. Importantly it was not even contended that compensation was tendered and refused by petitioners/land owners necessitating deposit of such compensation. Petitioners averment/contention that compensation was not tendered/paid remains uncontroverted. Section 24(2) of New Act, uses two different expressions viz., paid and deposited, both have different connotation. This would be clear if we bear in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. R.Manohar Lal ( Lapse -5), cited supra. The relevant portion reads as under:
“In re Issue 3 : What is the meaning to be given to the word “paid” used in Section 24(2) and “deposited” used in the proviso to Section 24(2)
200. Connected with this issue are questions like what is the consequence of payment not being made under Section 31(1) and what are the consequences of amount not deposited under Section 31(2). The provision of Section 24(2) when it provides that compensation has not been paid where award has been made 5 years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. In contradistinction to that, the proviso uses the expression “an 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries”. We have to find out when an amount is required to be deposited under the 1894 Act and how the payment is made under the 1894 Act. The provisions of Section 31 of the 1894 Act are attracted to the interpretation of provisions of Section 24(2) to find out the meaning of the words “paid” and “deposited”.
Section 31(1) makes it clear that on passing of award compensation has to be tendered to the beneficiaries and the Collector shall pay it to them. The payment is provided only in Section 31(1). The expression “tender” and pay to them in Section 31(1) cannot include the term “deposited”.
.....
203. The consequence of non-deposit of the amount has been dealt with in Section 34 of the 1894 Act. As per Section 24(2), if the amount has not been paid nor possession has been taken, it provides for lapse. Whereas the proviso indicates amount has not been deposited with respect to a majority of landholdings in a case initiated under the 1894 Act for 5 years or more. The period of five years need not have been specified in the proviso as it is part of Section 24(2) and has to be read with it, particularly in view of the colon and placement by the legislature as held above. Two different consequences of non-deposit of compensation are : (i) higher compensation in a case where possession has been taken, payment has been made to some and amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of the holdings, (ii) in case there is no lapse, the beneficiaries would be entitled to interest as envisaged under Section 34 from the date of taking possession @ 9% p.a. for the first year and after that @ 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 15% p.a. .....
211. If the expression “deposited” is held to be included in the expression “paid” used in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, inconsistency and repugnancy would be caused as between the proviso and the main sub-section, which has to be avoided and the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 31(2) is not fatal. Even if the amount has not been deposited, higher compensation has to follow in the exigency proviso to Section 24(2).
.....
213. It is apparent that “tender” of the amount saves the party tendering it from the consequence to be visited on non- payment of the amount. The obligation to make the payment has been considered in various other laws and decisions. When obligation to payment is fulfilled as to the scheme in the context of a particular act, for that purpose, decisions under various other laws are relevant and cannot be said to be irrelevant.
.....
217. Two different expressions have been used in Section 24(2). The expression “paid” has been used in Section 24(2) and whereas in the proviso “deposited” has been used. “Paid” cannot include “deposit”, or else Parliament would have used different expressions in the main sub-section and its proviso, if the meaning were to be the same. The Court cannot add or subtract any word in the statute and has to give plain and literal meaning and when compensation has not been paid under Section 24(2), it cannot mean compensation has not been deposited as used in the proviso. .......
18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 .....
225. The landowners had argued that the obligation to pay gets discharged only when compensation is actually paid and/or deposited. Even if it is received under protest under Section 31(1), it is finally accepted by the landowners post settlement by the Reference Court. We are not able to accept the submission as Section 34 of the 1894 Act, is clear even if the amount is not paid or deposited, it carries interest. The logic behind this is that if the State is retaining the amount with peace and its liability to pay does not cease, but it would be liable to make the payment with interest as envisaged therein. Once tender is made, obligation to pay is fulfilled so that the amount cannot be said to have been paid, but obligation to pay has been discharged and if a person who has not accepted it, cannot penalise the other party for default to pay and non-deposit carries only interest as money had been retained with the Government.
226. Thus, in our opinion, the word “paid” used in Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word “deposited”, which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the 1894 Act, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section 31(2) on being “prevented” from making the payment even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non-payment of the amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non- 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be entitled to by the Collector). In such case, the landowner would be entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference Court.” (emphasis supplied)
9. As stated above while the petitioners had stated that there has not been any tender, it remains uncontroverted. That being the case it appears that there is no payment of compensation in terms of sub section (2) to Section 24 of the New Act. In any view assuming the above deposit is with reference to the subject Award, nevertheless the evidence submitted is only in the form of challan which shows personal deposit account in the name of Special Tahsildar (LA), in support of the contention that compensation was paid. I am afraid that payment through personal deposit account would not be a valid mode of payment of compensation. In this regard it may be relevant to refer to the following judgment:
i) N. Devanathan & others v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8498:
“22. Regarding payment of compensation, admittedly, no amount has been paid. It is also not the case of the State that the amount was tendered and was refused by the land owners. The 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 learned Advocate General pleaded that the amount has also been deposited in a treasury account and produced a challan, dated 01.03.2001 for depositing the award amount of Rs. 38,83,496/-
into one personal deposit account of the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition. In this regard, firstly, the procedure of depositing into personal deposit account itself has been discontinued by the government with effect from 22.03.1991 vide Government Letter No. 10769, Tl/89- 2PWD. Secondly, the Indore judgment (cited supra) categorically lays down that payment would mean the actual modes of payment under the Repealed Act. It is specifically held that under the Repealed Act, there are three circumstances in Section 31, where, if the amount is tendered and is refused by the land owners or if the title of the person is doubtful or if there is any title dispute between rival claimants, the amount can be deposited into Court or otherwise in treasury if permissible. In this case, it is clear from the award itself that absolutely (i) there was no tender or refusal; (ii) there was no doubt as to the title; (iii) there was no rival claim or dispute regarding title; but, the award states that since there is a stay of dispossession, the amount is ordered to be deposited into the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Repealed Act. Thus, it can be seen that there is absolutely no tender whatsoever. Therefore, there is neither payment nor tender and therefore the State/Housing Board has not made out any case for the second exception.”
10. In view thereof, this Court finds that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of sub Section (2) to Section 26 of the New Act, as explained in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 Indore Development Authority supra.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.11.2025 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order spp 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 To:
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme No.3, Hudco Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 601 006.
3.The Executive Engineer, Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, HUDCO Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 601 006.
23/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
spp W.P.No.11921 of 2024 24.11.2025 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.11921 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.13023 of 2024
1. A.Selvaraj
2. N.Rukumani
3. A.Manokaran
4. Abdul Hai
5. K.Rajammal
6. A.Ravikumar
7. Abdul Rasheed
8. Saradha
9. Krishnaveni
10. Bakialakshmi
11. Prof. R.Ethirajulu ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024
2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme No.3, Hudco Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 601 006.
3.The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, HUDCO Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 60 006. ... Respondents (R-3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 06.06.2024 in W.M.P.No.16181 of 2024 in W.P.No.11921 of 2024) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the entire Land Acquisition proceedings relating in Award No.3/1995, dated 20.11.1995 nd of the 2 respondent in respect of petitioner's lands in S.F.Nos.226/1 (now 226/1B) situated at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District to an extent of 55 cents, 50 ¾ cents, 50 ¾ cents, 28 cents and 287 Sq.ft, 41 cents, 28 cents and 287 Sq.ft, 50 ¾ cents and 17 cents being common area respectively and totally admesuring 3.22 acres has become lapsed by virtue of the operation of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013.
For Petitioners : Mr.AK.Sriram,
Senior Counsel for
Dr.Yagna Moorthi
26/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm )
W.P.No.11921 of 2024
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.D.Veerasekaran/
Mr.V.Gunasekar
Standing Counsel for TNHB
ORDER
This Writ Petition is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of learned counsel for petitioners.
2. This Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025 disposed of the Writ Petition with the following observations:
''10. In view thereof, this Court finds that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of sub Section (2) to Section 26 of the New Act, as explained in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority supra.''
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in paragraph 10 of the order, Section 24 of the New Act has been wrongly mentioned as Section 26 and the same may be rectified.
4. In view of the above submission, paragraph 10 of the order dated 24.11.2025 in W.P.No.11921 of 2024 shall be substituted as follows:
''10. In view thereof, this Court finds that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of Sub-section (2) to Section 24 of the New Act, as explained 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority supra.''
5. Mr.V.Gunasekar, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that his appearance shall be marked along with Mr.D.Veerasekaran in the above order.
6. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith. Other portions of the order dated 24.11.2025 shall remain intact.
29.01.2026 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Lm 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 To:
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme No.3, Hudco Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 601 006.
3.The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, HUDCO Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 60 006.29/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm ) W.P.No.11921 of 2024 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
Lm/spp W.P.No.11921 of 2024 29.01.2026 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 06:12:29 pm )