Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JJ.
A. Nagarajan & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department & Another
Writ Appeal Nos. 368 of 2013 & 538 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 & 1 of 2014
Decided On: 16-06-2014
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 11(1), Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [KEYWORD] - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 11(1), Section 24(2)] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and held that if an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The court also considered the interpretation of the word 'or' and 'and' in legal provisions and relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed to be joint owners of land subject to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They challenged the acquisition proceedings and subsequent awards, arguing that the possession of the land had not been taken and the compensation had not been paid within the stipulated time frame. The court considered the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.9.1992, in approving compensation awards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the land had not been taken and the compensation had not been paid within the stipulated time frame, leading to the deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court also rejected the argument that the compensation awards were vitiated by the application of G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.9.1992, and held that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1027, Revenue Department, dated 25.9.1992, in approving compensation awards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which deemed the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed due to the non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation within the stipulated time frame. The court also considered the interpretation of the word 'or' and 'and' in legal provisions and relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed W.A.No.368/2013, set aside the order dated 21.12.2012, made in W.P.No.3880/2012, and declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents/appellants in W.A.No.538/2014, insofar as the lands in Survey No.68/3B admeasuring to an extent of 0.98.5 hectares, shall be deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, W.A.No.538/2014 was dismissed. The court also allowed the appellants in W.A.No.368/2013 to raise additional grounds and permitted them to raise the said additional grounds.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The appellants in W.A.No.368/2013 are the petitioners in W.P.No.3880/2012 and it was filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award in Award No.1/2003-2004 in SEC 929/98 dated 30.4.2003, and notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act 1/1894) in G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.3.2000, and declaration under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.272 of the same Department dated 16.5.2001, and quash the same. The writ petition after contest, was partly allowed on 21.12.2012, and the award dated 30.4.2003, passed by the second respondent viz. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the authorities concerned to follow the procedures contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act 1/1894), in passing the award, if the land in question covered in the said award, is required for public purpose and pass fresh orders and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners as well as the official respondents had filed W.A.Nos.368/2013 and 538/2014 respectively.
2. Since both the writ appeals arise out of the order dated 21.12.2012, made in W.P.No.3880/2012, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals, are as follows:
3(i) The appellants in W.A.No.368/2013, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.3880/2012, claim to be the members of the joint family and joint owners of the land measuring to an extent of 0.98.5 hectares, comprised in Survey No.68/3B situated at No.64, Kottagoundampatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. The first respondent in this appeal/first appellant in W.A.No.538/2014 has issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act 1/1894) (hereinafter referred to as L.A. Act) in G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.3.2000, to acquire vast extent of lands comprised in various Survey Numbers including the lands belonging to the appellants. The second respondent issued a notice dated 26.6.2000, under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act and after conducting an enquiry in accordance with law, has made a recommendation to drop the proceedings so far as the lands belonging to the appellants in W.A.No.368/2013, are concerned, and however, the first respondent has proceeded with the acquisition and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.5.2001.
3(ii) The appellants in W.A.No.368/2013 viz. petitioners in W.P.No.3880/2012, filed W.P.No.16709/2001 challenging the acquisition proceedings and a Single Bench of this Court has granted interim stay of dispossession alone in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants herein, vide order dated 14.9.2001. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.10.2008, and the interim order granted, was vacated consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition. The appellants herein aggrieved by the same, filed W.A.No.2179/2011 and in the interregnum, award was passed on 30.4.2003. The writ appeal in W.A.No.2179/2011 filed by the appellants herein, was dismissed on 10.4.2012, granting them liberty to challenge the award dated 30.4.2003. The appellants herein aggrieved by the dismissal of W.A.No.2179/2011, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19404/2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it was dismissed on 15.10.2012.
3(iii) The appellants herein pursuant to the liberty granted in W.A.No.2179/2011, filed the present writ petition in W.P.No.3880/2012, contending among other things, that in respect of one notification, two awards came to be passed on 30.4.2003 and 13.5.2003 respectively, and after the passing of the first award dated 30.4.2003, the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer became functus officio and therefore, he is not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
