Where land acquisition for public purposes remains unfinished and possession is not taken, compensation must be determined in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, applying the 01.01.2014 base date consistent with superior court precedents.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated

23.08.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner’s land was acquired by the respondents for public purpose and subsequently, vide impugned order dated 23.08.2021, the compensation for acquired portion was determined in terms of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as “1997 Act).

3. Further, he would submit that already a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.7550 of 2012, etc., had been filed against the very same acquisition made by the respondents. In the said batch, this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2022, had directed the Authority concerned to determine the compensation, in terms of the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as “2013 Act”), by taking the base date as 01.01.2014.

4. He would also submit that the aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C)No.10230 of 2023, wherein, vide interim order dated 13.10.2025, a direction was issued to the Collector to determine the award as per the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court and release 50% of the compensation to the affected person. Therefore, the petitioner, being the owner of the subject land, which was acquired under very same notification, is certainly entitled for determination of compensation in terms of the 2013 Act by taking the base date as 01.01.2014. However, the respondents had passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 by determining the compensation in accordance with the 1997 Act. Hence, this petition.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents had confirmed the submissions made by the petitioner with regard to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, it appears that the petitioner's property was acquired by the respondents for industrial purposes. Though the award was passed as early as on 23.08.2021, the physical possession of the subject land was not taken by the respondent over till date. In terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, if the physical possession was not taken over for a period of 5 years, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. Therefore, taking into consideration of the said aspect, this Court passed an order dated 17.10.2022 in the similar batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.7550 of 2012, etc., whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to determine compensation, in terms of 2013 Act, by taking the base date as 01.01.2014.

8. Against the said order dated 17.10.2022, the SLP(C)No.10230 of 2023 was filed by the respondents. In the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by virtue of interim order dated 13.10.2025, had directed the Collector to determine the compensation as ordered by this Court and release 50% of the amount to the affected person. Further, it was directed that the remaining 50% shall be paid, subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority.

9. In view of the above, it is clear that as per the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner, being the owner of similarly acquired land, is also entitled for compensation in terms of 2013 Act. However, in the impugned order, the compensation was determined in terms of 1997 Act, which is contrary to