Challenge to a 1995 land acquisition under the TN Harijan Welfare Schemes Act seeking release or lapse under Section 24(2) of LARR Act 2013 on grounds possession was not taken and compensation not deposited. Court found pattas were issued to beneficiaries and possession taken; writ petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 26..04..2024 Orders Pronounced on : 11..06..2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.224 of 2019 3794 & 3799 of 2023
W.P.No.224 of 2019
V.Sathish Kumar
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamu s, directing the 2nd respondent – District Collector,
1 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
Coimbatore District, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2017 seeking to release the land by giving up the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 concerned in S.F.No.788/2 to an extent of 8 Acres (3.24.0 Hectares) dry land in Karamadai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
W.P.No.3794 of 2023
V.Satish Kumar
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in Award No.2/95-96 dated 26.02.1996 and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the
2 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
respondents to pay the fair compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with respect to the petitioner's land admeasuring 8.00 Acres in S.No.788 of Karamadai Village, Mettypalayam Taluk.
W.P.No.3799 of 2023
V.Satish Kumar
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Notification in Ref.No.87663/94/N-8 dated 04.10.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (TN Act 31 of 1978) which was published on 04.11.1995 by the 1st respondent and the consequential Award in relation to acquisition proceedings in Award No.2/95-96 dated 26.02.1996 and to quash the same in respect of the property
3 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
belonging to the petitioner comprised in S.F.NO.788/2 of Karamadai village, Mettypalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, as null and void and declare the above said proceedings as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
[Prayer amended as per order dated 11.06.2024 made in W.M.P.No.4463 of 2024 in W.P.No.3799 of 2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.R.Deepak for petitioner in all Writ Petitions
For Respondent (s) : Mr.J.Ravindran. Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 3 in all Writ Petitions
4 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
COMMONORDER
The petitioner in all the three writ petitions is one and the same person. He is the son of the original land owner late Veera Raghavan whose land measuring an extent of 8.00 Acres comprised in S.No.788/2 of Karamadai village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District was acquired by the State under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (TN Act 31 of 1978).
5 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
2024 challenging the Notification issued under Section 4 of TN Act 31 of 1978 in Ref.No.87663/94/N-8 dated 04.10.1995 which was published by the 1st respondent on 04.11.1995 and the consequent award in Award No.2/95-96 dated 26.02.1996 as null and void on the ground that the entire acquisition proceedings got lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2019, in brief, are as follows:-
(a) An extent of 8.00 Acres of land comprised in T.S.No.788/2 of Karamadai Village Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, was ancestral property purchased by the petitioner's grand father-N.Veerasamy Chettiar and after his demise it was inherited by the father of the petitioner - Veera Raghavan and the brother of the father of the petitioner - V.Subramanian. The father of the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.865 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and the same was decreed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 31.10.1988 and hence, the father of the petitioner – late Veera Raghavan had become the absolute owner of the subject property.
6 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
During the life time of the father of the petitioner, the above said land was sought to be acquired for the welfare of Adi Dravidar community people and in pursuance of the same, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 04.10.1995 and an award was passed on 26.02.1996 determining compensation for the acquired land.
(b) Challenging the acquisition proceedings a writ petition in W.P.No.14189 of 1996 was filed by the father of the petitioner which was dismissed on 07.02.2002 and as against the same an appeal in W.A.No.1514 of 2002 was filed which was also dismissed on 06.07.2006. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner Veeraraghavan died on 10.06.2009 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother – Lakshmi Bai, sisters Sujatha and Suganthamala. The petitioner sent a representation dated 09.02.2012 to the District Collector, Coimbatore and Special Tahsildar, Coimbatore to re-convey the subject land as the purpose for which it was acquired was not achieved and the possession was then held by them. He filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4812 of 2012 seeking disposal of his representation dated 09.02.2012. The said writ petition was however dismissed by order dated 02.03.2012 with an observation that reconveyance can only be made by the Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
7 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
(c) Although the land was acquired in 1995, neither of the beneficiaries have taken possession nor residing there. Further, the amount determined as compensation by Award dated 26.02.1996 has not been paid to the land owner nor it was deposited before the reference court, hence he sent a representation dated 23.12.2015 and subsequently, another representation dated 05.01.2016 to the respondents. As there was no reply from the respondents to his representations, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4321 of 2016 and this court by order dated 23.02.2016, directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2016 for re-conveyance of the land and pass orders on merits in accordance with law. Pursuant to the same, he sent a detailed representation dated 20.03.2017 to the District Collector, Coimbatore however, the Government, in the mean time, vide its letter dated 08.07.2016 directed the District Collector, Coimbatore, to pass necessary orders as per the directions of this court in W.P.No.4321 of 2016.
(d) It is the further case of the petitioner that though the land was sought to be acquired in 1995, acquisition proceedings could not be completed and as such the entire acquisition proceedings came to be lapsed in view of the advent of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitations and Resettlement Act, 2013. After the new Act came into being
8 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
the State of Tamil Nadu had brought in an amendment by way of “the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014” to the new Act by inserting Section 105-A after Section 105 of the new Act under the caption “105-A – Provisions of this Act not to apply to certain Tamil Nadu Acts or to apply with certain modifications”. The FIFTH SCHEDULE was added to the new Act, specifying the enactments relating to acquisition by the said Amendment Act, 2014. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has to independently consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2017. Though the 2nd respondent has called for particulars with regard to acquisition proceedings, so far no orders have been passed on the representation made by the petitioner.
(e) It is the further case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.89,322/-
which was determined under the award as compensation towards the acquired land was not paid to the land owner nor it was deposited in the court. Further, the acquired land is kept vacant and not at all plotted out and it is kept idle and the possession still continues with the petitioner and his family. Hence, the writ petition seeking mandamus.
9 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
(a) that land measuring an extent of 08.00 Acres of land belonging to M/s.Gobald Motors Private Limited was sought to be acquired under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 and a notification was issued in this regard. Since the owner of the land did not appear for enquiry on 08.09.1995 despite having received notice for enquiry under Section 4(1) of the Act, it was concluded by the Land Acquisition Officer that the land owner had no objection for the proposed land acquisition. Thereafter, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published and award enquiry was conducted on 26.02.1996. Even though the land owner firm received enquiry notice, none appeared for the enquiry conducted on 26.02.1996 and therefore an ex parte award was passed on 26.02.1996. A copy of the award was also sent to the land owner by RPAD. The land was divided as house sites and assignments were issued to 216 Adi Dravidars on 19.03.1996 by the Land Acquisition Officer [for short “the LAO”].
(b) It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the land was originally belonged to one N.Veerasamy Chettiar and on his death as his legal heir V.Veera Raghavan filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14189 of 1996 which was dismissed on 07.02.2002 and the appeal preferred by V.Veera Raghavan in W.A.No.1514 of 20022 was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court
10 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
on 06.07.2006. As a result of interim order of stay granted by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal, possession of the acquired land could not be taken immediately by the Land Acquisition Officer. After the demise of the original land owner V.Veera Raghava Chettiar on 10.06.2009 , one of his legal heirs, the petitioner herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.123 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam along with an application in I.A.No.322 of 2011 for ad interim injunction against the LAO and the District Collector not to alter the physical features of the acquired land by putting up construction or otherwise till the disposal of the suit and the District Munsif was pleased to pass an interim order on 16.06.2011 directing both the parties to maintain status quo as found by the learned Advocate Commissioner during inspection on 19.04.2011. Thus, the entire acquired land had been kept vacant on account of the order of status quo.
(c) While so, the petitioner sent a representation dated 09.02.2012 to the District Collector, Coimbatore and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) requesting to re-convey the acquired land as the purpose for which it was acquired did not fructify by virtue of his continued possession. On the other hand, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4812 of 2012 for a direction to the authorities concerned to dispose of the representation dated 09.02.2012. But,
11 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
the said writ petition was dismissed on 02.03.2012. On the strength of order of status quo granted by the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, he sent another representation on 05.01.2016 seeking re-conveyance of the acquired land to the Government. Pending such representation, he moved another writ petition before this court in W.P.No.4321 of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the government to consider his representation dated 05.01.2016 which was disposed of by order dated 20.02.2016. Thereupon, the Government forwarded the representation dated 29.06.2016 to the District Collector, Coimbatore to pass necessary orders as directed by the High Court. On such communication from the Government and on further representation presented by the petitioner on 29.06.2016 the District Collector, Coimbatore, obtained a report from the LAO . The report indicated that none of the beneficiaries were found living on the assigned plots nor whereabouts were known and the land is continued to be a vacant site for 22 years since the assignments were granted to the beneficiaries on 19.03.2016.
(d) The 2nd respondent further contended that since the award was passed ex parte , the award amount was ordered to be deposited before the reference court and as per Section 30 of the Act, award amount was deposited before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore by way of cheque along with receipt
12 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
in the prescribed form viz., 'Form D' through letter dated 14.03.1996 by the LAO. The said cheque was, however, returned by the Sub Judge on 19.01.2004 raising certain queries with a request for revalidation and the same was not thereafter redeposited before the court for depositing the amount into the civil court deposit. The cheque was therefore lapsed w.e.f. 19.01.2004. The compensation amount as determined in the award was not thereafter redeposited before the Court to the credit of reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(e) Mean while, after repealing the Principal Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a new Act 'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitations and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “LARR Act, 2013) has been introduced which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Thereafter, Section 105-A was inserted after Section 105 of of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitations and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the Tamil Nadu Government by enacting an Amendment Act called “the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 (TN Act 1 of 2015) under caption “105-A. A provision of this Act not to apply to certain Tamil Nadu Acts or to apply with certain modifications”,
13 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
The FIFTH Schedule was added to the LARR Act, 2013 specifying the enactments relating to acquisition by the said Amendment Act, 2014. According to the schedule, the provisions of LARR Act, 2013 shall not be applied to the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Schemes Act, 1978 (TN Act 31 of 1978). The Amendment Act was notified w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and the same was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.3 under Part IV - Section 2 on 05.01.2015. The Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 has therefore a bearing on the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has since been repealed pursuant to the advent of LARR Act, 2013 .w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Since Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and published by the Collector, Coimbatore, under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, a special Act and the Government have also directed the Collector to pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner for re-conveyance of land, a decision has to be taken although there is no provision in the Special Act for re-conveyance. The subject field was inspected on 14.02.2023. There were 163 cement sheet roof huts put up and electric line poles were found erected by TNGEDCO.
(f) It is therefore contended by the 2nd respondent that since there is no provision for the release of the lands acquired from the acquisition proceedings
14 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.Nos.3794 & 3799 of 2023:-
15 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
the erstwhile owner viz., M/sGobald Motors Private Limited, the contentions inter alia made in the counter affidavits are nothing but replica of the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition in W.P.No.224 of 2019.
writ petitions and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in all writ petitions.
(i) though the writ petition in W.P.No.14189 of
16 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
1996 filed by the father of the petitioner challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of Special Act was dismissed, on appeal in W.A.No.1514 of 2002 at the instance of the unsuccessful land owner, interim order of stay was granted, however, writ petition came to be dismissed on 06.07.2006. As a result of interim stay granted by the Division Bench of this court, possession of the acquired land could not be taken by the LAO and the acquired land was not immediately used for the purpose for which it was acquired and that it had been kept unutilized all along due to the litigation.
(ii) after the demise of the original land owner-
V.Veera Raghava Chettiar on 10.06.2009, one of his legal heirs, the petitioner herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.123 of 2011 along with application in I.A.No.322 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam, wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the learned District Munsif by order dated 16.06.20211 directed both the parties to maintain status
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
quo as found by the Advocate Commissioner during his inspection on 19.04.2011; the original suit is still pending and therefore, the entire acquired land had been kept vacant on ground and
(iii) though cheque was drawn for the compensation amount determined under the award and presented before the civil court along with a reference under Section 30 of the Act, after the civil court had returned the cheque on 19.01.2024 with certain queries, it was never redeposited and therefore, the compensation amount determined under the award has not yet been paid to the land owner and the cheque got lapsed w.e.f. 19.01.2004.
The above admissions made by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Coimbatore, had driven the petitioner to file two other writ petitions one in W.P.No.3794 of 2023 challenging Award No.2/95-96 dated 26.02.1996 and the other in W.P.No.3799 of 2023 challenging the Notification issued by the 1st respondent in Ref.No.87663/94/N-8 dated 04.10.1995 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (TN
18 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
Act 31 of 1978) which was published on 04.11.1995.
counter affidavit filed by the District Collector in W.P.No.224 of 2019 would make it clear that possession had not been taken over till date and further no compensation has been paid. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire land acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in view of the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and as such the award passed by the LAO has to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to fair compensation as per the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
the other hand contend that the writ petitions are nothing but an attempt to gain unjust or unlawful enrichment. Earlier when the land acquisition proceedings were challenged in W.P.No.14189 of 1996 by the father of the petitioner, a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 07.02.1996 dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1514 of 2002 filed by the father was also dismissed on 06.07.2006 holding that assignments had already been made to the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries were also residing on the lands assigned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
to them.
20 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
and compensation for the acquired land also not yet been paid. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings stand lapsed automatically in view of Section 24(2) of the new Act.
21 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
22 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
the main writ petition, this court by order dated 01.10.1996 granted an order of interim stay of dispossession, if possession has not been taken by the respondents. However, such interim order of stay stood automatically vacated on the date when the writ petition in W.P.No.14189 of 1996 was decided finally and dismissed on 07.02.2002. The petitioner appealed against the order dated 07.02.2002 in W.P.No.14189 of 1996 by way of writ appeal in W.A.No.1514 of 2002 which was also dismissed by this court by judgement dated 06.07.2006. Much after the dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the father of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam along with an application in I.A.No.322 of 2011 seeking interim injunction wherein, the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam by order dated 16.06.2011 in I.A.No.322 of 2011 granted an interim order of status qu o. Not stopping with that, the petitioner initially filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4812 of 2012 seeking to consider and dispose of his representation dated 09.02.2012, however, this court, considering the fact that the challenge to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act had already reached finality, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 02.03.2012. There again the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.4321 of 2016 seeking a direction to the government to consider his
23 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
representation dated 05.01.2016 seeking re-conveyance of the land which was acquired by the Government. However, while dismissing the writ petition by order dated 23.02.2016, this court has held that though petitioner sought reconveyance of the subject land as the same was not utilized the purpose for which it was actually acquired, such issue could not be gone into at that juncture. That apart, when the petitioner's father also failed in the challenge to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, no positive direction could be issued as sought by the petitioner. This court while holding so, however, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2016 as per the law. Thereafter, W.P.No.224 of 2019 came to be filed to consider his representation dated 20.03.2017 to release the subject land by giving up the entire acquisition proceedings. Only in the above writ petition, the 2nd respondent - District Collector, Coimbatore, based on the report filed by the Tahsildar took a new stand that the land is lying vacant and none of the allottees were put in possession and the compensation amount has also not been deposited as the cheque drawn towards compensation was returned by the reference court with certain queries in 2004 itself and thereafter, it was not revalidated and redeposited before the reference court for depositing the amount into the civil court deposit account.
24 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
resurvey of the entire extent of land, however, no steps had been taken by the respondents. In the meanwhile, challenging the acquisition proceedings, writ petitions had been filed one after the other.
26 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
counter affidavit was filed to the effect that possession was already taken and and house site pattas were also issued to the beneficiaries. Therefore, when the purpose of land acquisition had already been achieved the moment when the assignment of house site pattas were issued to the beneficiaries, merely because some of the beneficiaries have not entered into possession of the assigned land immediately in view of the court orders, such situation would not mean that possession of the land was not taken by the authorities or the beneficiaries in whose favour the house sites were allotted. Now, the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent – District Collector, Coimbatore, that it has been clearly set out that there were 163 sheds put up by the persons who were given house site pattas and persons who purchased the house sites from the original beneficiaries put up thatched sheds. It has been further stated that 36 persons who were given house site pattas are residing in the area by putting up either cement roofing sheds, tiled roofing sheds or tin roofing sheds. It has also been stated that one common drinking water connection was provided by the then Town Panchayat and another drinking water connection has been provided by Karamadai Municipality and drinking water is being supplied once in three days and Karamadai Municipality has erected 13 electric posts through TANGEDCO and provided street lights.
27 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
28 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
29 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
District Collector, Coimbatore, held that possession of the acquired land was taken over. That judgement has become final. Again, on 02.03.2012, this court while dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.4812 of 2012 filed by the petitioner seeking to dispose of his representation dated 05.02.2012 for recoveyance of the acquired land, held that when the Division Bench of this court had already held that house site pattas were issued to the poor adi dravidars numbering 287 on 19.03.1996 itself.
30 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
electricity connections were not provided to any of the individual house sites. A list of the beneficiaries numbering 216 was also annexed with the said status report.
(8) SCC 129], it was observed and held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court that for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if the possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse of acquisition proceedings. The relevant paragraph(s) of the judgement read as under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
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
31 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
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. .”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed, however with the observations made above. No costs.
Index : yes / no 11..06..2024 Neutral Citation : yes / no kmk
To
33 of 34
W.P.Nos.224 of 2019, 3794 & 3799 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
Pre-delivery Common Order in Writ Petition Nos.224 of 2019 3794 & 3799 of 2023
11..06..2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 of 34
2 issues framed by the court
Did the acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, 2013 given non-deposit of compensation?
Was possession of the acquired land actually taken by the authorities?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indore Development Authority v. ManoharlalRelied on¶30
[2020 (8) SCC 129] · Who else cites this
Government of NCT Delhi vs. Dinesh KumarRelied on¶31
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3151 OF 2023 judgement dated 28.04.2023
5 provisions across 4 enactments
V.Sathish Kumar
The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (LA-2) Department
The District Collector, Coimbatore District
The Special Tahsildhar (LA - Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare), Coimbatore
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
