The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, affirming that procedural compliance was met, negating any retrospective claims for re-conveyance.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(The judgment of this Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.,) The present Intra-court Appeals under Clause 15 of the letters patent have been instituted by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition and the requisition body in respect of the lands acquired for developing Housing Scheme.

2.It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated to acquire the lands in S.No.2930/1, 2930/2, 2931 and 2932/1 in Pursawalkkam Village, Purasawalkkam – Perambur Taluk, Madras District, measuring an extent of 103 grounds under 4(1) Notification dated 30.10.1985 under 1894 Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette No.42-C. Consequently, by declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published in the extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Gazatte No.756 dated 22.12.1986.

Award was passed on 22.12.1988 in Award No.2/1988.

3.Pertinently, a writ petition in W.P.No.5640 of 1999 had been instituted challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Writ Court elaborately considered the issues and dismissed the writ petition on 13.04.1999. The said order became final. Thereafter, the first respondent preferred an application under Section 48(b) of the Old Land Acquisition Act to the Government seeking re-conveyance of the land. The application was not considered.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that land Acquisition proceedings in all respects concluded by passing award, depositing the compensation amount and by taking possession in the year 1999. The writ petition filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings failed. Subsequently, an application seeking re-conveyance of the acquired land was also not considered by the Government. Therefore, the writ Court in the order impugned ought not to have considered the case of the first respondent for granting the relief of declaration as if the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. When twin conditions as contemplated under the Act had been complied with, there is no reason to declare the acquisition proceedings as lapsed. Thus, the present writ appeals are to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would oppose by stating that the procedures as contemplated were not followed. Possession was not taken in accordance with law. Deposit of compensation has not been done as stated by the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3. The learned single judge has considered the fact that the procedures to be followed for taking possession had not been complied. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings are to be declared as lapsed. The learned counsel for the first respondent would urge this Court by stating that the compensation has not been received by the first respondent. There was a huge delay in depositing the compensation amount. The compensation amount deposited before the City Civil Court, Chennai, in LAOP No.40/2012 was dismissed on 16.02.2018. In view of the above facts, the writ order is to be sustained.

6.Heard the parties.

7.The Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing 4(1) notification. Award was passed on 22.12.1988 in Award No.2/1988, quantifying the compensation as Rs.55,51,380.05. Perusal of the award reveals that deposit of compensation has been made and the Official Trustee, High Court of Madras and the Secretary Pachaiyappa’s Trust have appeared for award enquiry and stated that they are the only persons interested in the land. The relevant portion of the award extracted hereunder:

FUNDS:

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has provided funds to the tune of Rs.55,51,3