Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
M. Murugesan
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.No.15807 of 2014
Decided on: 03-09-2014
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013] - The court discussed the application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and its interpretation in light of the facts of the case and previous judgments. The court found that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the petitioner's lands had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and declared the petitioner's lands discharged from the acquisition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that the land acquisition proceedings initiated for his property had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and neither compensation had been paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation had been deposited in the Court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner was in possession of the land and sought a remedy under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the petitioner's lands had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and declared the petitioner's lands discharged from the acquisition proceedings.
Issues: The issues to be decided were whether the petitioner was in possession of the land and whether the compensation amount was paid to the landowner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no documentary proof regarding the quantum of compensation and mode of payment and date of payment in the name of the landowner. The court also considered the possession certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the petitioner and his brother were in possession and cultivating the land. The court allowed the writ petition and declared that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the petitioner's lands had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and discharged the petitioner's lands from the acquisition proceedings.
1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner submits that the subject property situated in Survey No.572/A and Survey No.575 to an extent of 1.38.5 hectare in Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District was originally belonging to his grandfather by right of purchase. It was inherited by his father S.Munivegadappa and after his death in the year 2010, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said lands were used for agricultural purpose. The said lands along with other lands of larger extent were acquired by the Government for implementation of common housing development scheme by invoking Land Acquisition Act 1894 and by operation of a new law which came into effect from 01.01.2014, the present writ petition is filed seeking for declaration, declaring that the said acquisition is lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 i.e, the Central Act 30 of 2013, herein after referred to as "the Central Act 2013."
2. The petitioner additionally added that in the present case Section 4(1) notice was gazetted on 30.01.1991, followed by Section 6 Declaration made on 08.04.1992. Subsequently, an award came to be passed vide Award No.2 of 1994, dated 10.04.1994. Hence, the award was passed more than 10 years prior to the commencement of the present Act 2013. Secondly, no compensation was paid or deposited to the petitioner till date and this can be ascertained by the respondents own communication under the Right to Information Act, dated 19.07.2011 which affirmed the fact that the compensation amount had not been paid to the petitioner. Thirdly, the physical possession is also with the petitioner and this fact can be ascertained from the possession certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. Hence, by operation of law i.e., Section 24(2) of the Central Act 2013, the said land acquisition is deemed to be lapsed. Further, the present writ petition is filed not withstanding the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court, seeking for reconveyance of land by invoking Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after it was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.977 of 2013 and the said appeal is pending. The present writ petition is filed by virtue of the passing of the New Act, i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which was passed subsequent to the filing of the above said appeal. Further, there is no bar in filing this petition in view of the operation of Section 24 of the New Act 2013.
3. The petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, wherein, in a similar issue, this Court in Writ Appeal No.918 of 2010, wherein the facts are similar to that of petitioner's case and it was in respect of adjacent land where the issue of reconveyance was sought and which was negativated by the learned Single Judge, this Court in the above said Appeal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above held as follows:-
"20. The Award No.17/1994 came to be passed on 12.8.1994, and there is a clear indication in the said award, that the third respondent was very much conscious of the fact that the appellant and his brother have refused to receive the compensation and it was further stated that the compensation amount will be deposited by invoking Section 31(2) of the Central Act, 1894. The second respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board without any loss of time, has issued a cheque dated 2.2.1995, for a sum of Rs.1,79,53,793/-, which includes the compensation amount in respect of Award No.17/1994 dated 12.8.1994. The third respondent, after receipt of the said cheque, in turn, deposited the same to the credit of "Civil Deposit for works done for public bodies work deposit" on 16.2.1995; but, he fails to deposit the compensation amount in respect of Award No.17/1994,
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
