M MURUGESAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD; SPECIAL THASILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION), HOUSING SCHEME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that the subject property situated in Survey No.572/A and Survey No.575 to an extent of 1.38.5 hectare in Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District was originally belonging to his grandfather by right of purchase. It was inherited by his father S.Munivegadappa and after his death in the year 2010, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said lands were used for agricultural purpose. The said lands along with other lands of larger extent were acquired by the Government for implementation of common housing development scheme by invoking Land Acquisition Act 1894 and by operation of a new law which came into effect from 01.01.2014, the present writ petition is filed seeking for declaration, declaring that the said acquisition is lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 i.e, the Central Act 30 of 2013, herein after referred to as "the Central Act 2013."

(2.) The petitioner additionally added that in the present case Section 4(1) notice was gazetted on 30.01.1991, followed by Section 6 Declaration made on 08.04.1992. Subsequently, an award came to be passed vide Award No.2 of 1994, dated 10.04.1994. Hence, the award was passed more than 10 years prior to the commencement of the present Act 2013. Secondly, no compensation was paid or deposited to the petitioner till date and this can be ascertained by the respondents own communication under the Right to Information Act, dated 19.07.2011 which affirmed the fact that the compensation amount had not been paid to the petitioner. Thirdly, the physical possession is also with the petitioner and this fact can be ascertained from the possession certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. Hence, by operation of law i.e., Section 24(2) of the Central Act 2013, the said land acquisition is deemed to be lapsed. Further, the present writ petition is filed not withstanding the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court, seeking for reconveyance of land by invoking Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after it was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.977 of 2013 and the said appeal is pending. The present writ petition is filed by virtue of the passing of the New Act, i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which was passed subsequent to the filing of the above said appeal. Further, there is no bar in filing this petition in view of the operation of Section 24 of the New Act 2013.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, wherein, in a similar issue, this Court in Writ Appeal No.918 of 2010, wherein the facts are similar to that of petitioner's case and it was in respect of adjacent land where the issue of reconveyance was sought and which was negativated by the learned Single Judge, this Court in the above said Appeal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above held as follows:-