Completed land acquisitions under 1894 Act immune from Section 24(2) 2013 Act challenge if possession taken and compensation deposited prior.

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 appellant before the writ court runs thus:The respondents chose to acquire only 4 grounds and 1459 sq. ft. Out of 5 grounds belonging to the appellant and the appellant had purchased a piece of land measuring 5 grounds in S.No.2935/2 in Nammalwarpet, Purasaiwalkam, along with three other purchasers from N.Munusamy and others and the respondents citing incomplete revenue records are attempting to assail the title of the appellant, who has a valid title by way of registered document.

4.2. The first respondent under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act of 1894”) sought to acquire 255 grounds and 1226 sq. ft., which included 4 grounds and 1459 sq. ft. of the appellant’s lands measuring 5 grounds and the lands of co-purchasers. The appellant was required to submit objections as contemplated under Section 5 (A) of the Act of 1894 and written objection was also submitted by the appellant by specifically stating that she intends to put up a house for her occupation in the subject-land. By a Memo dated 31.7.1986, the second respondent had overruled appellant’s objection and had exempted the land comprised in S.No.2953/1 to 4 belonging to persons mentioned in Serial Nos.8 to 11 in Section 4 (1) notification. Thereafter, by a further notification under Section 3 (b) of the Act of 1894, an enquiry was conducted on 22.8.1986, subsequently, vide proceedings dated 26.8.1986, a declaration was made that the lands in Survey Nos.2930/ 1 to 2, 2931, 2933/1 and 2, 2932/1 and 2 and 2933 (162 grounds 1110 sq. ft.) are required by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) for construction of houses and decided for acquisition of the said extent of lands.

4.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, items 5 and 6 of Section 4 (1) notification comprising of 36 grounds and 1228 sq. ft.Were also excluded by the first respondent based on the recommendation of the second respondent. Only item Nos.1 to 4 (belonging to Pachaiappa’s Trust administered by AG & OT) and item 7 of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) remained for the acquisition contemplated by the TNHB. In the 22 grounds and 2082 sq. ft. stated in item No.7 of notification under Section 4(1), the appellant’s property of 4 grounds and 1459 sq. ft. is subject to acquisition.

4.4. The appellant had filed the present writ petition in 1986 and pending writ petition, there was a stay and, on 22.12.1986, Section 6 declaration for the rest of the lands in 4(1) notification exempting the appellant’s 4 grounds and 1459 sq. ft. was issued. The stay granted in the writ petition was extended from time to time for certain periods. Thereafter, there was no stay for 6 months from 27.1.1987 to 19.7.1987. On 20.7.1987, stay of all further proceedings was granted which includes taking of possession. After a