Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71790
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Sounthar, J
V. Rajalakshmi (deceased) 1. – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Collector – Respondent
C.R.P(MD)No.1477 of 2026|C.M.P(MD)No.7276 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Reference of Dispute - Section 30 of the 1894 Act vs Section 64 of the 2013 Act - Where acquisition proceedings have not lapsed, a reference made under the old Act regarding the person entitled to compensation is valid and cannot be struck off in favor of the new Act. (Para 6)
(C) Evidence of Fraud - Fabricated Documents - Allegations of fraud regarding deposit challans must be specifically raised and established by cogent evidence, particularly when contrary factual findings were already recorded by a Division Bench in earlier proceedings. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under the 2013 Act and whether the reference should be made under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. John
For the Respondents: L. Siva
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to strike off reference under the 1894 act in favor of the 2013 act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. possession of land prevents lapsing of acquisition proceedings under section 24(2). (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. binding nature of prior judicial findings on possession and compensation. (Para 5) |
| 4. validity of section 30 reference when acquisition has not lapsed. (Para 6) |
| 5. requirement of cogent evidence to establish fraud in legal proceedings. (Para 7) |
| 6. applicability of reference laws based on the date of the award. (Para 8) |
| 7. dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 9) |
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to L.A.O.P. No. 23 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, to strike off the same as being without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of law. Consequently, this Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to determine the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to make a reference under Section 64 of the said Act, 2013 and allow this Civil Revision Petition
ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.O.P. No.23 of 2020 pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' land was acquired for the purpose of a Housing Board Scheme. Though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1989, the compensation has not been paid till date. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is untenable and the reference should have been made under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the reference made under the old Act is liable to be strike off from the file.
3. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 30.08.1989 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 01.10.1990. The award came to be passed on 04.06.2001. It is also evident from the records that the possession of the acquired lands was taken from the petitioners and the other landowners in the year 2001. As per the law settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors . reported in AIR 2020 SC 1496, in order to claim that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the twin conditions prescribed therein must be satisfied, namely:
(i) possession of the acquired land should not have been taken from the landowners;
(ii) the compensation amount should neither have been paid to the landowners nor deposited in accordance with law.
4. In the present case, it is evident from the records that the possession of the acquired lands had already been taken in the year 2001. Therefore, the twin conditions set out in the Indore Development Authority case (cited supra) have not been satisfied and the petitioner is not entitled to impugn the proceedings initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act and claim that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have made a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
5. It is also seen that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court and filed W.P.No.12418 of 2013 challenging the proceedings under land acquisition old Act. A Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of a batch of cases, including the petitioners'
