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
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
AI
No reasonable explanation being given by the petitioners for such inordinate delay, this court should not go into the stale demand of the petitioners after lapse of years.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
Once possession is taken by the State after acquisition, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury prior to the enforcement of the....
Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, including the deposit of compensation and evidence of physical possession, is crucial for the validity of acquisition proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.