Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer – Appellant
Versus
Sathyamoorthy – Respondent
W.A.Nos.1398, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1396, 1403 & 1404 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.8638 8644, 8646, 8649, 8652, 8664, 8675 of 2021
Decided on : 01-08-2024
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 24(2) - The court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the necessity of compensation deposit and possession taking, leading to the conclusion that the acquisition was non est due to non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenged a writ court's order that deemed the land acquisition non est due to failure to deposit compensation and take possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the writ court's findings, noting that the compensation had not been deposited and possession was not taken, thus violating the conditions set forth in the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: Whether the land acquisition was valid given the failure to deposit compensation and take possession as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of compensation deposit and possession taking rendered the land acquisition proceedings non est.
Result: All writ appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order in W.P.No.13613 of 2013 dated 15.04.2016.
The present intra-court appeals have been instituted by the Executive Engineer and the Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the common order dated 15.04.2016.
2. The land belonged to the respondents were acquired by the Government for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
3. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act was came to be challenged by the land owners in the writ petitions.
4. It was argued before the writ court that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is to be construed as non est, on the ground that the procedures as contemplated under the Act were not followed. The writ court considered the fact that possession was not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and more-so, the compensation was not deposited before the competent Court or under the Revenue Deposit. On the said two grounds, the writ petitions were allowed.
5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board preferred the writ appeals.
6. Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the findings of the writ court that the compensation had not been deposited is incorrect. The appellant has produced the original receipts to establish that the compensation had been deposited on the file of the Principal Sub-Court at Coimbatore.
7. However, Mr.R.N.Amarnath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents emphatically contended that the compensation had not been deposited and the land owners have thoroughly verified this by approaching the Principal Sub-Court at Coimbatore.
8. In view of the contradictory submissions made between the parties, this Court directed the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras to verify whether the compensation amount has been deposited in the present case. Upon verification, the Report of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Coimbatore is produced before this Court by the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras. The Report of the learned Principal Sub-Judge dated 31.07.2024 reads as under:
| From P.K.Sivakumar, Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. | To The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Coimbatore | ||
| D.No.155/24 | Dated:31.07.2024 | ||
| Honoured Madam, |
| ||
| Sub: | Cases - Civil Cases - Common order received from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A.No.1398, 1392 to 1394, 1396, 1403 and 1404 of 2021 in W.P.2383, 2388, 2391, 2394, 2398, 2401 to 2404 of 2019 and CMP.Nos.8638, 8644, 8646, 8649, 8652, 8664 and 8675 of 2021 dated 25.07.2024 - Received - Report called for - Submission - Regarding. | ||
| Ref: | Phone message received from the Hon'ble Registrar (Judiciary), High Court of Madras, Chennai on 29.07.2024. | ||
|
| Official memorandum received from the Hon'ble Principal District Court in A.No.1187/2024 D.No.673 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024 | ||
| I humbly submit that, as per reference cited above the compensation in Award No.11 of 1987 dated 04.12.1987, the award amount of Rs.6,78,984/- has not been deposited in LA.No.13 of 1981 (Award No.11 of 1987) by the Land Acquisition Officer on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. I further submit that the above particulars verified in the Deposit Register, Cheque Issue Register, Ledger and Repayment Register. The connected award number in LA.No.13 of 1981 (Award No.11 of 1987) so far LAOP also has not been numbered in this Court. This is submitted for your Honour's kind information. | |||
|
|
| Yours faithfully, sd/- Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. | |
9. In view of the fact that the possession had not been taken from the land owners and
AI
The court established that non-compliance with the Land Acquisition Act's requirements invalidates the acquisition process.
Merely because there was an audit objection and a portion of the amount deposited was returned would not lead to the interference that the amount was not deposited.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
