Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents who have got written instruction from the respondent reiterated the contentions set out in the impugned proceedings and submitted that the land has already been utilized for CMRL project. Learned counsel for 5th respondent specifically contended that the land has been fully utilized for the workshop and administrative block etc., of the CMRL project and therefore the land acquisition proceedings would not be lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the (Act 30 of 2013). The Special Thasildar has given written instructions to the Deputy Planner (K), CMDA, with copies to the Law officers, wherein the same stand as taken in the impugned proceedings has been set out. The issue as to whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of Section 24 (2) (Act 30 of 2013) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, the earliest being the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, 2014 3 SCC 183. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when compensation is not paid to the person interested and where award has not been made more than five years, the subject land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Division Bench has analyzed the long end of decisions. The decisions are the point and held as follows:

8. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

3. This Review, at the instance of the Chennai Metropolitan Rail Limited (hereinafter after referred to as CMRL), was on the ground that the land acquisition has not lapsed and the amount was lying in Court deposit. Therefore, the Court extensively heard the matter and passed orders from time to time. First of such order is dated 02.11.2016. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

 5. From the above averments it is clear that the amount of compensation payable to Thiru.Santhappan for the extent of 2775 sq.ft. has not been paid to the land owner, but, is lying in Revenue deposit. By applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the acquisition has to be held to have lapsed and in fact that was the reason assigned while allowing the Writ Petition by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner herein has not made any case for review of the order and direction issued in the Writ Petition and the factual averments as set out in the counter affidavit filed by the Collector of Chennai is sufficient to dismiss the Review Petition.

List on 18.11.2016.

4. Subsequently, by order dated 05.01.2017, the Court recorded the discussions, which took place between the parties, with regard to the compensation amount payable to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

2. From the papers placed before this Court, and particularly, the letter, dated 03.01.2017, issued by Chennai Metropolitan Rail Limited (CMRL) to the District Collector, Chennai District, it is seen that negotiated compensation amount would be deposited by (CMRL). Therefore, a request has been made to this Court to facilitate the negotiation process. The learned Government Advocate shall get appropriate instructions on the communication sent by CMRL to the District Collector, dated 03.01.2017. In the meantime, this Court pointed that the land owners have to be compensated, and what is required to be discussed is quantum of compensation. In any event, the quantum of compensation cannot be lesser than the guideline value, and therefore, pending discussion between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate that, a direction be issued to the CMRL to deposit Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs to the credit of Review Application till proceedings are concluded by the District Negotiation Committee. This direction is obviously without prejudice to the rights of the parties, more particularly, the rights of the landowners, who are entitled to just compensation together with solatium and interest. The aforesaid compensation amount has been mentioned by this Court by taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for landowners that the guideline value as on date is Rs.5700/- per sq.ft., and the total extent of land is 2775 sq.ft.,

5. The CMRL has given written instructions to the learned counsel for the applicant vide E-Mail dated 12.01.2017, wherein they requested for direction to conclude the private negotiation. However, to ensure that the interest of the land owner is also protected and at the same time, there is seriousness to the private negotiation, which has been agreed upon by all the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct CMRL to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the credit of Review Application No.51 of 2016 in the Indian Bank, High Court Branch on or before 01.02.2017. This amount shall be kept by the Indian Bank, in an interest bearing account for the minimum period of one month. It is made clear that this amount is fixed as an adhoc basis and not going by the value as stated by the land owners.