Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J, G.ARUL MURUGAN
Irene Jose, W/o. Late C.Jose Ukkur – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to completed pre-2013 acquisitions fail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, C.J.
Assailing the order 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10939 of 1986, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from acquiring the piece of land belonging to the appellant and more fully described in the schedule pursuant to the notification in G.O.Ms.No.1056, dated 11.10.1985, on the ground that the said acquisition is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
3. The learned Single Judge, vide order impugned in this appeal, dismissed the writ petition holding that possession of the subject-land was taken over on 26.7.2005 and the acquisition proceedings completed in all respects even prior to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “Act of 2013”) cannot be challenged. The learned Single Judge also held that compensation was also deposited even prior to coming into force of the Act of 2013.
4.1. The case of the
Completed land acquisitions under 1894 Act immune from Section 24(2) 2013 Act challenge if possession taken and compensation deposited prior.
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....
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under 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.
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.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
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 – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
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
