P. JAYADEVAN Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT
LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-57
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 03,2014

P. Jayadevan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE GOVERNMENT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CLASSIC STATEMENT OF LORD ROCHE IN NAZIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH KAPUR VS. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPN OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

E RAMACHANDRAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-151] [REFERRED TO]
G. THOMAS DEVANANDAM AND ORS. VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-303] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
B. VENKATESALU VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
T THANGAVELU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-336] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The writ petitioner is the appellant and W.P.No.13800/2008 has been filed by him for quashment of the order dated 11.10.2007, passed by the first respondent, by and under which, his request for re-conveyance of lands admeasuring 0.62.0 hectares in Survey No.890/1B and 0.49.0 hectares in Survey No.889/1B, came to be rejected, and the said writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 29.3.2010, and hence this appeal.
(2.)The facts narrated in brief, leading to the filing of this writ appeal, are as follows:
2(i) The first respondent has sought to acquire the lands situated in Hosur, Dharmapuri District, now Krishnagiri District, for the purpose of Housing Neighbourhood Scheme Phase XV and XVI for Hosur Housing Unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board and accordingly, issued G.O.Ms.No.850, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.5.1991, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and it was published in the Gazette of the Government of Tamil Nadu on 19.6.1991. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.528, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12.8.1992, and was also published in the Gazette of Government of Tamil Nadu on 12.8.1992, for acquisition of 6.52.5 hectares for the said scheme.

2(ii) The appellant claims that he was the owner of the land admeasuring 0.62.0 hectares in Survey No.890/1B, and the land admeasuring 0.49.0 hectares in Survey No.889/1, belonged to his family and challenging the legality of the said acquisition, he along with four of his relatives filed W.P.No.1261/1993, on the file of this Court, and it came to be dismissed on merits, on 12.4.2000.

2(iii) The appellant herein submitted a representation praying for re-conveyance of the above said lands, situated in the said Survey Numbers, and since it was not disposed of, filed W.P.No.4142/2007. Learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 6.2.2007, directing the respondents therein, who are also arrayed as respondents in the present writ appeal, to consider and dispose of the said representation within a stipulated time.

2(iv) The first respondent in compliance of the order, has considered the request made by the appellant for re-conveyance of the lands, and rejected the same vide letter No.3797/LA.2 (2)/2007-5 dated 11.10.2007, stating among other things, that after Section 6 declaration, an award came to be passed on 12.8.1994, in Award No.17/1994 and on account of order of stay with regard to dispossession, the lands in question, have not been handed over to the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently, possession was taken and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 15.12.2000. It is further stated in the said letter, that the lands in question, are essentially required for the implementation of the Housing Scheme and the request for re-conveyance cannot be feasible of compliance and therefore, the first respondent rejected the said request.

2(v) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board in turn, sent a letter dated 1.2.2008, to the appellant conveying the information about the rejection of his request by the Government and challenging the correctness of the proceedings dated 11.10.2007, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.13800/2008, contending among other things, that the persons similarly placed like him, had approached this Court and got the relief and therefore, his request for re-conveyance ought to have been considered positively.

2(vi) It is further contended that the official respondents have not even chosen to deposit the amount due and payable towards compensation, till the date of filing of the writ petition and in reality, the appellant/writ petitioner has not been allowed to avail the benefits of the acquisition process and even today, the land is used for agricultural purpose and hence, he prayed for quashment of the above said order passed by the first respondent herein.

2(vii) The learned Single Judge having considered the factual aspects and legal position, found that the relief sought for by the writ petitioner/appellant herein for re-conveyance, cannot be granted and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide final order dated 29.3.2010, and hence this appeal.

(3.)The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, has submitted that "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Central Act 30 of 2013)" came to be passed in the Parliament and it came into force with effect from 1.1.2014, and also invited the attention of this Court to Section 24 of the said Act and would contend that as per sub-section (2) of Section 24, where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the present Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if so chooses, shall initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.