Madras High Court Examines Writ Petitions Challenging Sale Notice and Seeking Declaration of Lapse of Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. Dispute Involves Lands Acquired for Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme, with Compensation Deposited in Court and Possession Allegedly Taken, Raising Question of Applicability of Section 24(2).

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a sale notice for housing plots and seeking declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; also seeking exemption and re-conveyance of part of the acquired land.

In W.P.No.1955 of 2011: quash the sale notice dated 19.12.2010 and direct the respondents to exempt 90 cents of acquired land and re-convey it to the petitioners. In W.P.No.13157 of 2015: declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect of 9.40 acres had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act.

The petitioners contended that compensation was never tendered to them and physical possession was not taken in accordance with law, thereby triggering the lapse provision under Section 24(2). The subsequent sale notice published by the Housing Board for the acquired land prompted legal action to prevent transfer and vindicate their rights.

Earlier writ petitions filed by the original landowners challenging the acquisition notification (W.P.No.759 of 1986, W.P.No.17436 of 1995) were dismissed. A petition seeking exclusion of land (W.P.No.5916 of 1998) was disposed of directing consideration of representation, which was ultimately rejected. A challenge to that rejection (W.P.No.10454 of 2001) was dismissed but permitted a restrictive representation for exemption of the dwelling house area, which was also rejected by the Government on 20.09.2002.

Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that compensation was not tendered and possession not taken. Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption and re-conveyance of 90 cents of land despite the dismissal of earlier challenges and rejection of representations.

Petitioners argued that compensation was not paid or tendered to the landowners, and physical possession was not taken over as per law, hence the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. They relied on judgments in K.Saraswathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, N.Devanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. In the alternative, petitioners contended that if lapse was not granted, the compensation should be redetermined under the new Act taking cut-off date as 01.01.2014, relying on Indore Development Authority and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Poovatha. The State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted that the award was passed and the compensation amount was deposited into court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the landowners refused to accept it. They asserted that physical possession was taken over on 21.01.1995 and thereafter a layout was prepared and construction commenced, thus there was no lapse. They pointed out that successive writ petitions by the landowners had been dismissed, and the present attempt was an abuse of process.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

the award was passed on 26.9.1988 in Award No.4/88-89 and that since the land owners did not accept the award amount, a sum of Rs.5,54,277.50 Ps was deposited into the Sub-Court, Namakkal under Sections 30 and 31 of the Old Act on 27.1.1989. possession was taken over on 21.1.1995, that subsequently, a layout was prepared in the year 1996. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.4.1998 directing the Government to dispose of the said representation dated 30.3.1998 within a period of six months.

Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 04.02.1983. Declaration under Section 6 on 23.08.1985. Original owner Karuppa Gounder filed W.P.No.759 of 1986 challenging notification; dismissed on 28.03.1994 and confirmed by Division Bench on 27.09.1994. Award No.4/1988-89 passed on 26.09.1988. Compensation of Rs.5,54,277.50 deposited into Sub-Court, Namakkal on 27.01.1989 under Sections 30 and 31. Another owner Subramani filed W.P.No.17436 of 1995 challenging notification and declaration; dismissed on 17.10.2001. K.Eswaran and K.Pavayee filed W.P.No.5916 of 1998 seeking direction to dispose of representation for exclusion; disposed on 24.04.1998 with direction. Representation rejected on 13.12.1999. Pavayee challenged rejection in W.P.No.10454 of 2001; disposed on 11.06.2001 permitting restricted claim for exemption. Government rejected restricted claim on 20.09.2002. Physical possession taken on 21.01.1995; layout prepared in 1996. Sale notice published on 19.12.2010. W.P.No.1955 of 2011 filed challenging sale notice and seeking exemption and re-conveyance. W.P.No.13157 of 2015 filed seeking declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Old Act): 4(1), 6, 12(2), 30, 31
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act): 24(2)
• Constitution of India: 226