ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the first respondent under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, covered in Award No.10/87 dated 16.10.1987 in respect of the lands of an extent of 1.16 acres comprised in Survey No.455 and an extent of 6.50 acres comprised in S.No.456, totally admeasuring about 7.66 acres situated in Telugupalayam Village, Coimbatore District belonging to the petitioner Trust, as lapsed by operation of law in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).

The present Writ Petition has been filed claiming benefits under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-habitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as “New Act”].

2. Heard Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 & 4 as well as Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. The properties comprised in Survey Nos.455 & 456 measuring an extent of 7.71 acres were the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the first respondent under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Old Act”) and covered under Award No.10 of 1987 dated 16.10.1987 under L.A.No.11 of 1981.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act, since the acquisition authorities had neither paid the compensation for the acquisition proceedings of the subject lands to the petitioners under Form B nor was the physical possession of the subject lands were taken by the authorities in the prescribed manner.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, as well as the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), submitted that the compensation amount for acquisition of the subject properties was properly deposited in the Civil Court and possession of the subject lands were also taken and handed over to the TNHB and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, cannot be sustained.

6. Physical Possession:-

The law relating to mode of taking physical possession under the Old Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Act has been well settled through a catena of judgments. In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amirstar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1996 (4) SCC 212, it was held that the normal mode of taking possession is by drafting of a panchanama, in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiary is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. In the subsequent landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129, this ratio was summed up in the following manner:-

“366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”

7. In the instant case, the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore states that the possession of the subject lands were handed over to the Surveyor, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore on 16.10.1987. Apart from this possession certificate, there is no other document evidencing such a possession was handed over in the presence of witnesses by drafting of panchanama. Neither the counter affidavit nor the respo