The court upheld the High Court's ruling that acquisitions lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-compliance with compensation and possession requirements.

ORDER :

1. Application for impleadment is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.

2. We are informed that in some of the cases the service is incomplete. However, it seems to us that all the land owners are not required to be heard as effective hearing have been accorded to them on representative basis.

3. Delay condoned.

4. Leave granted.

5. This batch of civil appeals have no similarity on facts as all the matters have arisen out of different acquisitions made by the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the “1894 Act”), for the purported public purpose of development of housing schemes by the beneficiary of the acquisition, namely, the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board (in short, the “Housing Board”) – appellant no.1. The reason that these matters have been clubbed together is the common question as to whether the subject acquisitions are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the “2013 Act”) and if so, whether the appellants are obligated to commence the acquisition process afresh in accordance with provisions of the 2013 Act.

6. On illustrative basis, it may be noted that in C.A. Nos.13256-13257 OF 2024 @ SLP(C) Diary No.28009/2022 and other connected cases, the lands of village Vellakinar and Thudiyalur in Coimbatore District were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of 1894 Act on 27.05.1991. A declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act was notified on 15.06.1993. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.5/1994 on 23.06.1994. While the appellants claim that the compensation amount was received by the land owners on 05.09.1994 and possession of the land was also taken over by the Housing Board on 22.11.1994, the respondent – land owners have successfully demonstrated before the High Court that at least one out of the twin conditions contained in Section 24(2) of 2013 Act were not complied with. Resultantly, the challenge laid by them to the acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act was sustained by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 23.06.2014 passed in W.P. No.14661/2014.

7. The appellants then filed Intra-Court Appeal bearing W.A. No.174/2015 which has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the judgment dated 26.02.2016.

8. Instead of challenging the said judgment before this Court, the appellants had filed a belated Review Application No.194/2017 which, strangely, remained pending for years till it was summarily dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 03.02.2022.

9. This is how the judgment of the Division Bench dated 26.02.2016 as well as the order dated 03.02.2022 passed in the review applications, both are under challenge in these appeals.

10. As noticed at the outset, and at the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the facts are varying from case to case inasmuch as, in some of the cases, the expropriated land owners have raised constructions like school, dwelling units and other structures. Besides questioning the acquisition for violation of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, ancillary argument to release such structures have also been raised. Similarly, in some of the cases, the plea of inordinate delay etc., have been raised.

11. In this context, we have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.13274- 13275/2024 @ Diary No.40218/2022 and other counsel in some of the connected matters.

12. Learned senior counsel for the appellants assail the impugned judgments of the High Court inter alia on the grounds that:

(i) the compensation amount had been paid to the land owners;

(ii) the High Court itself has acknowledged the payment of compensation to the expropriated land owners except in two cases;

(iii) the possession of the acquired land was taken and a formal entry to this effect was made in the Governme