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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Tmt. Indirani - Respondent 
W.A.Nos.930 & 1028 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025 


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. N. Moorthi, Standing Counsel for TNHB
For the Respondents: Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader.

An award under the Land Acquisition Act legally vests land with the Government, barring re-conveyance claims and differentiating between awarded and unawarded lands regarding exemption under Section 24(2) of the new LA Act.

Headnote:(A) LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Reference to various sections cited including Section 24(2) and Section 48-B - Challenge to Government land acquisition proceedings - Acquisition initiated in 1998 for developing a township; awards passed on 466.49 acres, with proceedings dropped for lands with no awards - Writ appeals contested the legality of notifications related to acquisition - The court affirmed that once an award is passed, lands vest with the Government, and re-conveyance under Section 48-B is not an absolute right. (Paras 2-14)

(B) Interpretation of law - The court held that the exemption procedures outlined in G.O.Ms.No.7 cannot be applied to cases where the government has already deposited compensation and taken possession, distinguishing between cases of awarded lands and those without awards. (Paras 2, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose out of writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications for 83.29 acres within the acquired 466.49 acres necessary for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board’s township project. Controversy arose over compensation has been deposited, and whether exemption clauses from the government could apply.

Findings of Court:
The court underscored that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had the required possession and that exemption procedures do not apply due to dissimilar contexts between awarded and unawarded lands.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the government-compensated and possession-taken lands could be re-conveyed under Section 48-B, and if a denial of benefit under Section 24 (2) of the new LA Act was erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment specified that possession transferred post-award bars re-conveyance claims, establishing that acquired land legally vests with the government and granting exemptions must not mix awarded and unawarded cases.

Result: Writ appeals allowed, and the impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. court analyzed compliance with acquisition proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. argued validity based on compensation payments. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. established that previous judgments do not apply. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The intra-Court appeals on hand have been instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the orders passed by the writ Court dated 18.11.2021 & 07.01.2022 in the respective writ petitions.

2. The facts in brief required for consideration would be that the land acquisition proceedings in five villages, namely, Koothambakkam, Vellavedu, Parvatharajapuram, Narasingapuram and Chembarambakkam villages were initiated by the Government under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the old LA Act”) in the year 1998, pursuant to the announcement made by the Hon'ble Minister for Housing and Urban Development on the floor of the Assembly on 21.08.1996, for developing Tirumazhisai Neighbourhood Scheme through the requisitioning body, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire 1694.98 acres, which includes 743.35 acres of wet lands and 951.63 acres of dry lands. S.4(1) notification was issued. Admittedly, awards have been passed in respect of 466.49 acres, which includes 371.59 acres of wet lands and 94.90 acres of dry lands. In respect of lands acquired after passing of awards, the Government passed an order and handed over the acquired lands to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Challenging S.4(1) notification, writ petitions were filed by the owners. The batch of writ petitions filed challenging S.4(1) notification were allowed and aggrieved thereby, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) preferred writ appeals before this Court. The writ appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide the common judgment dated 19.10.2023. Special Leave Petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was dismissed at the admission stage.

3. Fact remains that the Government itself came out with a revised proposal and had taken a decision to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of cases where no award has been passed. Accordingly, lands to an extent of 1228.49 acres were exempted from land acquisition proceedings, mainly on the ground that no award has been passed in those cases. The Government considered the revised proposal of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board for formation of Tirumazhisai Satellite Township and decided not to acquire lands any further, except 235.67 acres of lands, for which awards have been passed and possession handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 33.42 acres for which possession yet to be handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 102.50 acres covered under Court cases, for which award has already been passed. Altogether 371.59 acres of wet lands and 94.90 acres of dry lands, for which award has been passed and possession yet to be handed over and 12.96 acres of wet lands for formation of approach road. Entire land is totally 466.49 acres.

4. As far as the present writ appeals are concerned, the acquisition involved is to an extent of 83.29 acres. It is not in dispute between the parties that award had been passed in all those cases and compensation had been deposited either in civil Court deposit or in district treasury and in some of the cases, the erstwhile land owners withdrew the award amount. Therefore, out of 466.49 acres of lands, wherein award has been admittedly passed, 83.29 acres of lands including the lands covered in two writ petitions have been involved in respect of the batch of writ appeals now before this Court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board would mainly contend that the lands involved in the present writ appeals measuring 83.29 acres are concerned, admittedly award has been passed and compensation has been deposited by the G

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