Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, including the deposit of compensation and evidence of physical possession, is crucial for the validity of acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.14055/2015 dated 20.09.2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.)

T. Raja, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.14055/2015 wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for by the writ petitioners/respondents herein holding clearly therein that the District Collector has categorically admitted that since the land-in-question is not required for the acquisition proceedings, the acquisition proceedings can be recalled and the same could be also published in the Government Gazette.

2. Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that when the land-in-question to an extent of 3.11 acres in Old Survey No.127 and New Survey No.36/2, Athimanjeri Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District was acquired by issuing G.O.Ms.No.777, Social Welfare (BC III) Department dated 01.03.1982 by invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, an award also has been passed on 25.03.1982. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14055/2015 was filed taking multiple grounds that a) the physical possession of the land has not been taken; b) the compensation also has not been deposited in the manner known to law; and c) The District Collector also has given a recommendation that the land acquired was not required, therefore, the acquisition proceedings can be recalled. Although a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the appellants herein making it clear that the ground taken by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the physical possession of the land has not been taken was a false statement because the physical possession of the land has been taken and the amount of compensation has been deposited in the Government account, however, the learned Single Judge refusing to accept the pleas made in the counter affidavit, allowed the writ petition, overlooking the recommendation made by the very same Collector. Although the land-in-question was not required for the purpose for which it was acquired and at the same time, the same land can be utilized for some other purpose, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. Arguing further, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when the land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the owner and the other legal heirs by filing a civil suit unsuccessfully, after a long lapse of time, the writ petition filed ought not to have been entertained because the compensation amount was remitted before the Sub-Court, Kanchipuram in the year 1982 and for some defects indicated therein, although the same was returned for want of certain compliances, the same was remitted into the Government Account in the year 2004. In view of the continuous legal battle between the parties on title, this vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. When there was a dispute between the land owners, in view of the legal battle continuing between the parties on the ownership of the land, the amount of compensation could not be deposited in the Sub- Court, Kanchipuram, but the same was deposited in the Government Account in the year 2004. Therefore, the question of lapse of the land acquisition proceedings does not arise. Resultantly, the application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also cannot be applied in the present case.

4. Concluding his arguments, learned Additional Advocate General contended that after the passing of the award dated 25.03.1982, in view of the title dispute between the parties, the amount of compensation was deposited in the Government Account in the