R.Abdul Halim, v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.29663 of 2017 R.Abdul Halim
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Tasildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Project, Kancheepuram.
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
...Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the land acquisition proceeding initiated made in pursuance of Award No.1 of 1995 dated 28.04.1995 in respect of lands in Survey No.1217 in Siva Kanchi part of Konerikuppam Village, Kanchipuram measuring about 17 cents, as lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.Richardson Wilson Government Advocate.
For R3 : Mr.Vanchinathan Standing Counsel.
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to declare that the land acquisition proceeding initiated made in pursuance of Award No.1 of 1995 dated 28.04.1995 in respect of lands in Survey No.1217 in Siva Kanchi part of Konerikuppam Village, Kanchipuram measuring about 17 cents, as lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after called as "the New Act").
2.
The case of the petitioner is that he owned land comprised in survey No.1217 situated at Siva Kanchi Part of Konerikuppam Village, Kancheepuram, to an extent of 17 cents. The respondents initiated acquisition proceedings for establishment of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act") was published on 26.02.1992. After completion of acquisition proceedings, an award has been passed by fixing compensation at Rs.2,353/- per cent. On the objections raised by the petitioner, it was referred under Section 18 of the old Act before the Referral Court. The Referral Court viz., the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-II, Kancheepuram had taken the said case in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1997 and by an order dated 11.06.
2004, enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,022/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an Appeal Suit before this Court in A.S.No.934 of 2005 and this Court by the judgment dated 15.04.2010 enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,022/- to Rs.25,733/- per cent.
(2) of the new Act.
3.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents filed typed set of papers and submitted that the petitioner was appeared for the award enquiry and the award has been passed on 28.04.1995 itself. Under protest the compensation amount has been received by the petitioner on 03.07.1995. Thereafter the possession of the subject property have been taken over and the same was handed over to the third respondent as early as on 16.10.1998 and the revenue records are also mutated in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board viz., the third respondent herein. Insofar as the compensation amount is concerned, the award amount has been deposited in the Civil Court on 31.12.2012 and subsequently the enhanced compensation amount has also been deposited in Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram on 14.12.2017. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
4.
Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.Vachinathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5.
The grounds raised by the petitioner 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."
6.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled all proposition of law in the above judgment including the grounds raised by the petitioner. That apart, the subject land was acquired for establishment of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The acquisition proceedings have been completed and the subject land was taken over by the government and the possession was handed over to the Housing Board on 16.09.1998. Further the requisition body also deposited the enhanced compensation amount before the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, on 14.12.2017. 7.
Therefore, the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. In view of the settled position of law, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
8.
In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rts To 1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Tasildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Project, Kancheepuram.
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46471 W.P.No.29663 of 2017 GJ(CO) RVM(07/10/2021)