← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19936/2017dismissed

C.Subramaniam v. State Of Tamil Nadu

2021-09-08Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN WP.No.19936 of 2017 and WMP.No.21503 of 2017

1. C. Subramaniam

2. T. Kannammal

3. P. Malliga

4. Minor P. Subasree, Rep. by her mother P. Malliga.

5. R.Soundari

...Petitioners

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. District Collector, Erode District, District Collectorate, Perundurai Road, Erode - 638 001.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Brough Road, Erode 638 001.

4. Chairman cum Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19, a Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai - 08.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 by the state of Tamil Nadu of the lands in survey number 260/4 extent of 1.01.5 hectares situate that Perundurai village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District for industrial purposes as being lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents either to reconvey the land or pay compensation to the petitioners by fixing the market value of the land as on this day.

For Petitioners : Mr.Kumaresh Baby for Mr.V.Balamurugane For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Government Advocate For R4 : Mrs. Sudarshana Sunder

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the state of Tamil Nadu of the lands in survey number 260/4 extent of 1.01.5 hectares situate that Perundurai village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District for industrial purposes as being lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents either to reconvey the land or pay compensation to the petitioners by fixing the market value of the land as on this day.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the land comprised in survey No.260/4 to an extent of 1.01.5 hectares situated at Perundurai, Erode was acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). On 15.07.1992, notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued proposing to acquire the lands. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 09.10.1992. On 11.08.1995, declaration under Section 6 was published. An award enquiry was conducted and award was passed in Award No.2 of 1995 on 11.08.1995. As per the award, sum of Rs.1,41,816.32/- was awarded for the land to the petitioners. The said amount was directed to be deposited in the Referral Court as per Section 31 (2) of the Act, as it was impossible for them to apportion the amount to the legal heirs and sought to refer the matter for apportionment as per Section 30 of the Act. It is also curious to note that the original land owners already challenged the acquisition proceedings in

WP.No.17125 of 1995 and the same was dismissed. The only grievance of the petitioners is that they were not able to find the proceedings in respect of their lands and they sent application under Right to Information Act seeking details in respect of their property. Therefore, they challenged the acquisition proceedings under the net Act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Admittedly, already the acquisition proceedings were challenged and negatived by this Court. The grounds raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition 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 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, 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. 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."

4.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioners.

That apart, the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject land was taken over by the government and the same was handed over to the requisition body. Therefore, the petitioners failed to satisfy the twin requirements under Section 24 (2) of the New Act, i.e., the physical possession of the land was not taken 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.

5. The only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that whether the award amount has been deposited or not. However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the award amount has been deposited as early as on 25.05.2000 in the Bank of Baroda.

6.Therefore, if at all any delay in deposit, the petitioners are entitled for interest as envisaged under Section 34 of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok/drm To

1. Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. District Collector, Erode District, District Collectorate, Perundurai Road, Erode - 638 001.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Brough Road, Erode 638 001.

4. Chairman cum Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19, a Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai - 08.

+1CC to Mr.V.Balamurugane, Advocate, Sr.No.45402 +1CC to Mr.Government Pleader, Sr.No.45873 WP.No.19936 of 2017 and WMP.No.21503 of 2017 PL (CO) K.RK. (06.10.2021)