D. BALARAMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J) The appellant herein has brought this Writ Appeal against the impugned order dtd. 11/12/2015 passed in W.P.No.900 of 2015 in and by which the learned Single Judge while refusing the prayer for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the lands to an extent of 18 cents in Survey No.98/5 of Thiruvanmiyur Village duly notified by the 2nd respondent in the Award under Reference No.7/86 (RC.No.414/79) dtd. 23/9/1986 as lapsed in view of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The land-in-question was originally acquired by issuing a Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), on 17/7/1978. Subsequently,a Declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was also issued on 6/8/1991. Thereafter, an award was also passed on 23/9/1986 in Award No.7/1986 and a compensation of Rs.40.95 p. had been deposited in a Civil Court under Ss. 30 and 31 of the Act on 16/2/1987. While so, the grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant herein is that firstly, although the Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated as early as on 17/7/1978 by issuing a Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the physical possession of the land has not been taken and the appellant has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same till date. Secondly, as per Sec. 16 of the Act, the mode of taking physical possession of the acquired land following the Panchanama in the presence of witnesses signed by them has not been fulfilled. Thirdly, the compensation payable to the land acquired also has not been paid to him. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents stood lapsed.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that as per Sec. 24(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, any acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said sec. 11 has been made five years or more and where physical possession of the land has not been taken or where no compensation has been paid, the saidproceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and fresh proceedings have to be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30/2013. This aspect has been totally overlooked by the learned Single Judge.