The court emphasized that the compensation amount being set apart and deposited in a Treasury account was sufficient to escape the rigour of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the lands measuring 0.30 acres comprised in Survey Nos.89/5 and 89/8A, Thoppur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District as lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.)

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking writ of declaration to declare that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have got lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the land in dispute was purchased by his father on 11.06.1975. A notification was issued under 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16.10.1985 for acquiring a land measuring 558.06 acres. Pursuant to the said proceedings, an award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in Award No.10 of 1988 dated 14.10.1988.

3. According to the petitioner though award was passed, his father did not receive the compensation amount. The petitioner had further contended that he preferred a representation to the Housing Board which is the beneficiary under acquisition proceedings to reconvey the land on the ground that the said land has not been used by the Housing Board for the project for which it was acquired. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.4714 of 2012 seeking a mandamus to transfer the said land to the petitioner under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent Housing Board to consider his representation and pass orders. On 05.11.2012 , the Housing Board passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner's father on the ground that the land is situated nearby National Highways and the same is required by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for project.

4. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition for a declaration that the previous acquisition proceedings have got lapsed on two grounds namely that his family has not received the compensation from the respondent, though an award has been passed in 14.10.1988. That apart, the respondents have not taken possession of the land till date and the petitioner's family continues to be in possession of the disputed property. Hence, he prayed that under Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013, it should be declared that the entire acquisition proceedings under the old Act have got lapsed.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Housing Board drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 28.12.1988 to the effect that the possession has been taken over by the Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board from Acquisitioning Authority. The learned Additional Advocate General also placed before the Court the revenue challan under which the entire compensation amount was deposited before the treasury on 26.08.1988. Hence, he contended that the possession has been taken and the award has also been deposited in the year 1988 itself. Hence, there is no scope for invoking Section 24(2) of Central Act 30 of 2013 for declaring that the acquisition proceedings have got lapsed.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 ( Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others) to impress upon the court that it is not necessary that both possession and the payment of compensation amount should have been completed before coming into force of the new enactment that is on 01.01.2014. Even if one of the conditions is satisfied, the acquisition proceedings under th