S m subramaniyam judge bench.HC allows TNHB to take possession of 103 grounds of Pachaiyappa’s Trust land
HC allows TNHB to take possession of 103 grounds of Pachaiyappa’s Trust land
R SIVAKUMAR @Chennal
IN a victory to the state govern-ment in taking possession of 103 grounds of land in Purasa-walkam in Chennai, the Ma-dras High Court has set aside a single judge’s order that quashed the 1985 land acquisi tion proceedings.
A bench of justices S M Sub-ramaniam and C Saravanan passed the orders while allow ing the appeal filed by CMD of TNHB. The appeal was filed for setting aside the order passed on September 14, 2022 on the pe-titions filed by the Administra-tor General and Official Trus tee (AGOT) by the single judge who had held that the entire ac-quisition proceedings lapsed as the possession was not taken.
The case goes back to the noti-fication issued on October 30, 1985, for acquiring 103 grounds in Purasawalkam belonging to the Pachaiyappa’s Trust. TNHB passed the award for acquisi-tion on December 22, 1988, and a compensation of ₹55.51 lakh was deposited.
A writ plea against the acquisition was filed in 1999 and the court dismissed the pe-tition. In 2022, the sin-gle judge ordered in fa-vour of the AGOT allowing writ pleas challenging the gov-ernment’s decision to reject the application for reconveyance of the land. Challenging this, TNHB filed appeal.
AAG P Kumaresan, assisted by special govt pleader S Sen-
thilmurugan, appearing for the secretary of housing depart ment and the tahsildar for land acquisition, submitted that the single judge ought not to have considered the case of the AGOT when the acquisition proceedings reached finality after passing the award and paying compensation.
However, advocate M R Jothimanian, appear ing for the AGOT, told the court due procedures as contemplated in the Act were not followed. The bench held that the land acquisition proceedings became final in all respects by passing the award, depositing the compensation and taking possession of the land. Therefore, if at all the
compensation has not been re-ceived by the erstwhile owners of the acquired land, it is left open to them to withdraw the compensation along with interest.
The bench said, in the order, “However, the land acquisition proceedings were completed even prior to the new Land ac-quisition Act of 2013. The twin. conditions contemplated under Section 24 (2) of the new Land Acquisition Act have not been established for the purpose of seeking declaration. In the opinion of this court, both pos-session as well as deposit of compensation were made even prior to the new Land Acquisi-tion Act.” Thus, the first re-spondent is not entitled for the relief, the bench said.
