SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P.B. BALAJI, JJ.
B. Venkatesalu & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MIG.2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 1317 of 2017 & CMP. No. 2413 of 2018
Decided On : 01-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Sathiyaseelan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, V. Manoharan, AGP, R3, G. Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel R4,Jayesh B Dolia, For Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate.

The court emphasized the importance of establishing possession of the acquired land and held that the claim under Section 24(2) of the Act was unsustainable without such establishment.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Urgency Clause - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 17 - G.O.Ms.No. 1339 (Industries) dated 20.09.1982 - The court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the order made in Review Application (W) No. 27 of 2016 in W.P.No. 7103 of 2014. The court found that the property was acquired under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in 1982 and handed over to SIPCOT in 1982, and later taken possession by the 4th respondent in 1992. The court held that the petitioners failed to establish their possession of the property and their claim under Section 24(2) of the Act was unsustainable.

Fact of the Case:

The property was acquired under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in 1982 and handed over to SIPCOT in 1982, and later taken possession by the 4th respondent in 1992. The petitioners claimed re-conveyance of the land and challenged the land acquisition proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners failed to establish their possession of the property and their claim under Section 24(2) of the Act was unsustainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were in possession of the acquired land. 2. Whether the claim under Section 24(2) of the Act was sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to establish their possession of the property and their claim under Section 24(2) of the Act was unsustainable.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 08.08.2017 made in Review Application (W) No. 27 of 2016 in W.P.No. 7103 of 2014 and consequently allow the writ petition in W.P.No. 7103 of 2014 and pass such further or other orders.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 08.08.2017 made in Review Application (W) No. 27 of 2016 in W.P.No. 7103 of 2014, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the writ Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that originally the property in question in survey no. 583 to an extent of 4.46 acres of land belongs to the father of the petitioners. The respondent passed G.O. Ms.No. 1702 (Industries) dated 16.12.1980 to acquire the land for the purpose of Second Industrial Complex at Mornapalli Village in the year 1980 itself. The land acquisition notification in G.O.Ms.No. 1339 (Industries) dated 20.09.1982 was issued invoking urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act only on 06.10.1982. The compensation amount was awarded by the respondents for survey no. 581 to an extent 4.46 acres.

3. The Government has passed Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 1339 (Industries) dated 20.09.1982 specifically stating that the land is acquired for the formation of Second Industrial Complex by SIPCOT only. The above agricultural land in S.No. 583 to an extent of 4.46 acres being separated from the rest of the acquired lands for second Industrial Complex for SIPCOT by the KRP Canal, was continuously cultivated without any kind of disturbance from anybody by the petitioners under the KRP Canal water project till 2012. By invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner''s agricultural lands were acquired by the 1st respondent-Government for the purpose of setting up industrial complex by the 3rd respondent SIPCOT. Later the said lands were transferred to 4th respondentprivate company in the year 1992.

4. Though the petitioner''s land was acquired in the year 1982 itself under urgency provisions of the 1894 Act, it was still not utilised for more than about 30 years. Only after 10 years since acquisition on 30/07/1992, a lease deed was executed in favour of the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent, SIPCOT. The 4th respondent-company till date has not utilised the acquired land because the petitioners'' land is being separated by a Kelavarapalli Reservoir Project Canal from the rest of the land acquired and the petitioners were cultivating the land till 2012.

5. The 4th respondent -Company started preventing the petitioners from entering and cultivating the acquired land with malafide intention to get over the legal proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioners for re-conveyance in the year 2012. But no development has been taken place so far as and the land is being kept vacant. The petitioners have made representation to the authority seeking re-conveyance of their land but no action was taken by the authorities. Thereafter the petitioners have filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 10751 of 2012 and by order dated 18.04.2012, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners'' representation for re-conveyance. But the 1st respondent by order dated 27.08.2012, rejected the petitioners'' claim for re-conveyance. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed two other writ petitions in W.P.No. 2518 of 2013 challenging the 1st respondent''s rejection order and W.P.No. 5263 of 2013 challenging the land acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms.No. 1339, dated 20.09.1982 invoking Section 17 of the 1894 Act and the said writ petitions are pending before this Court.

6. Thereafter, through Right To Information Act, the petitioners were informed that the Land Acquisition Award made in No. 17/84 dated 29.09.1984 for a sum of Rs. 13,883.60 has been deposited in the revenue account of Sub-Treasury, Hosur vide Challan No. 459

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top