Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession and compensation requirements.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.10.2015 in W.P.No.30635 of 2015.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. He filed W.P.No.30635 of 2015, seeking to declare the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [in short "Fair Compensation Act"], so as to enable the fourth respondent Tahsildar to incorporate the name of the petitioner as owner of the land. The Writ Court dismissed the same, vide order dated 28.10.2015, against which the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No.233/5, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 25.10.2004 bearing Document Nos.7385 and 7386 of 2004 from one Mrs.G.Geetha and Mr.P.Mathivanan respectively. The petitioner also put up construction of Stilt + 2 floors after obtaining permission from CMDA and the building has also been assessed to property tax and other statutory levies. The appellant questioned the land acquisition proceedings dated 15.05.1978 in W.P.Nos.24170 and 24171 of 2005, challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 Declaration dated 06.06.1981 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Old Act] and further sought for a direction to the respondents to convey the land to the petitioner. The said writ petitions were allowed by this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2005 and on appeal by the Government, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, vide judgment dated 27.06.2008. However, the appellant/writ petitioner continues to be in possession of the property. In the meantime, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force and according to the petitioner, under Section 24(2) of the new Act, the acquisition proceedings got lapsed as the petitioner/appellant is in possession of the property. On that ground, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

3. The Writ Court, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner/appellant has purchased the property only in the year 2004 and whereas according to the respondents possession was taken as early as on 21.10.1986 and the petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser and in the light of the well settled position of law that subsequent purchaser cannot have any right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings, has dismissed the same, vide order dated 28.10.2015. Hence, the present writ appeal.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that when the award has been passed in the year 1986 under Award No.12/86 dated 14.08.1986, possession has been taken over on 21.10.1986 and the compensation amount has also been deposited, the petitioner cannot seek any benefit under the new Act. The appellant, being a subsequent purchaser from one Ramakrishnan, who is the original owner of the land, has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings after passing of award and taking possession of the land in the year 1986 by the respondent Board. Merely because the appellant obtained approval plan from CMDA authorities and constructed superstructure and the same was subjected to statutory levies, the same will not create any right to the appellant and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.

5. Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents have not taken actual physical possession of the land under the old Act and the respondents have not produced any record to show that they have taken actual physical possession under the old Act and hence, the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013. It is further contended that when one wing of the Government authoriti