Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) against a single judge's order dated 28.04.2023 allowing a writ petition that declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land was acquired for a housing scheme; the Section 4(1) notification was issued in 1982, an award was passed in 1987, and compensation was deposited with the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in 1988. Possession was handed over to TNHB in 1990, which obtained layout approval and developed the land. The respondent Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust had earlier filed two writ petitions that were either disposed of or dismissed. Many years later, it filed the instant writ petition invoking the 2013 Act. The single judge allowed it, holding that the acquisition had lapsed. TNHB contended that both conditions of Section 24(2)—taking possession and payment of compensation—had been met, and the writ petition was a stale claim. The Club argued that procedures were not followed and compensation deposit was not proved. The Division Bench examined the possession certificate, deposit receipt, and a subsequent court order in L.A.O.P. No. 115 of 1994 that acknowledged the deposit. It found that possession was taken and compensation deposited, thus satisfying the twin conditions as per the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The court further held that the writ petition was a stale claim since the acquisition was completed decades ago and the land had been utilized. On the maintainability of the appeal by the requisitioning body, the court relied on U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi to hold that TNHB had the right to appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the single judge’s order set aside, and the writ petition dismissed. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Twin Conditions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was initiated via Section 4(1) notification in 1982, award passed in 1987, compensation deposited in the Sub Court in 1988, and possession handed over to the Housing Board in 1990. The Court examined documents including possession certificate and deposit receipt and held that the twin conditions of taking possession and depositing compensation had been fully complied with; thus, there was no lapse. (Paras 2, 9, 12-15, 17)
B) Constitution - Requisitioning Body's Right to Appeal - Locus Standi - The right of a requisitioning body to challenge orders in land acquisition matters is well-settled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 - The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as the body for which the land was acquired, was an interested party and could file the writ appeal; the objection to maintainability was rejected. (Paras 18-20)
C) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Stale Claims - A writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings decades after completion, where possession has been taken, compensation deposited, and the land developed (layout approved), is a stale claim and ought not to be entertained. The single judge's order declaring lapse was set aside on this ground as well. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the twin conditions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 were satisfied so as to hold that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed, and whether the writ appeal filed by the requisitioning body was maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ appeal was allowed; the order of the single judge dated 28.04.2023 in W.P. No. 3351 of 2020 was set aside. The Housing Board was directed to take necessary steps to protect the land. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 requires twin conditions of possession taking and compensation deposit for lapse
- if both conditions are met
- acquisition does not lapse
- requisitioning body has locus to file appeal
- writ challenges to concluded acquisitions are stale claims.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 120
WA No. 38 of 2025 and CMP No. 259 of 2025
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:969
Mr. P. Kumaresan, AAG, assisted by Mr. M. Arun Kumar, SC for TNHB; Mr. S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel for Mr. R.N. Amarnath for R1; Mr. A. Selvendran for R2 to R4
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit
1. The Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust, 2. The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, 3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), 4. The Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Appeal challenging a single judge's order that declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
The appellant, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, sought to set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 in W.P. No. 3351 of 2020, which had allowed the writ petition and declared the acquisition lapsed.
Filing Reason
The writ petition was filed by the Coimbatore Cricket Club Trust claiming that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; the single judge accepted this contention.
Previous Decisions
The learned single judge, by order dated 28.04.2023 in W.P. No. 3351 of 2020, declared the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Issues
Whether the twin conditions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 were satisfied, so as to determine if the acquisition lapsed.
Whether the writ appeal filed by the requisitioning body, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (TNHB) argued that all procedures under the old Act were followed, award passed, compensation deposited in court, possession taken and handed over to TNHB, layout approved; thus, twin conditions met and writ petition was untenable and stale.
Respondent (Club) argued that procedures were not followed, possession not properly taken, compensation deposit not proved due to inconsistencies, and the single judge was correct in declaring lapse; also contested the maintainability of the appeal by the requisitioning body.
Ratio Decidendi
For a land acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, it must be shown that neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid. If both conditions are satisfied—possession taken and compensation deposited—the acquisition does not lapse. A requisitioning body has the right to appeal against orders affecting its interest. Writ challenges to acquisitions concluded long ago and where the land has been developed are stale and not to be entertained.
Judgment Excerpts
The land acquisition proceedings were completed in all respects, with the notification under Section 4(1) issued in the year 1982, followed by an award passed in the year 1987. The compensation amount was deposited with the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in L.A.No.11 of 1981 under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
When twin conditions as stipulated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act has been complied with, the writ petitions filed challenging the land acquisitions proceedings are to be construed as stale claims, and the Courts are not expected to entertain the writ petitions.
The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi and Others, has approved the rights of the Requisitioning Body to file an appeal challenging the determination of the amount of compensation fixed.
Procedural History
The Section 4(1) notification was issued in 1982; 5(A) inquiry conducted in 1982 and 1984; six declarations issued in 1985; award inquiry under Section 11 from 25.02.1987 to 27.02.1987; award passed on 16.10.1987; notice under Section 12(2) served; compensation deposited in Sub Court on 29.03.1988; possession handed over to TNHB in 1990; layout approval obtained in 1994; reference under Section 30 answered on 23.09.2013 in L.A.O.P. No. 115 of 1994. The first respondent filed W.P. No. 7204 of 1987 challenging the 4(1) notification, which was disposed of granting liberty; subsequently filed W.P. No. 18250 of 1994, dismissed for non-prosecution. Later, W.P. No. 3351 of 2020 was filed claiming lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; the single judge allowed it on 28.04.2023. The present writ appeal was instituted against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 5(A), 11, 12(2), 30
- Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971:
