Tnhb Land MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.A.No.1251 of 2023 & CMP.No.12538 of 2023 & W.A.No.1252 of 2023 & CMP.No.12539 of 2023 The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1251 of 2023 & CMP.No.12538 of 2023 &
W.A.No.1252 of 2023 & CMP.No.12539 of 2023
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.103
Now at Present address
CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. …
Vs.
1.The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Chennai.
2.The State of Tamil Ndu,
Repd by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600035.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition (VIII)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Appellant
Nandanam,Chennai – 600 035. … Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 14.09.2022 in W.P.No.16632 of 2016.
For Appellant … Mr.D.R.Arunkumar (TNHB)
For Respondent No.1 … Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For Respondent … Mr.P.Kumaresan
Nos.2 & 3 Assisted by
Mr.S.Senthilmurugan Spl.Govt.Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
(The judgment of this Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.,)
The present Intra-court Appeals under Clause 15 of the letters patent have been instituted by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition and the requisition body in respect of the lands acquired for developing Housing Scheme.
2.It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated to acquire the lands in S.No.2930/1, 2930/2, 2931 and 2932/1 in Pursawalkkam Village, Purasawalkkam – Perambur Taluk,
Madras District, measuring an extent of 103 grounds under 4(1) Notification dated 30.10.1985 under 1894 Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette No.42-C. Consequently, by declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published in the extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Gazatte No.756 dated 22.12.1986. Award was passed on 22.12.1988 in Award No.2/1988.
3.Pertinently, a writ petition in W.P.No.5640 of 1999 had been instituted challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Writ Court elaborately considered the issues and dismissed the writ petition on 13.04.1999. The said order became final. Thereafter, the first respondent preferred an application under Section 48(b) of the Old Land Acquisition Act to the Government seeking re-conveyance of the land. The application was not considered.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that land Acquisition proceedings in all respects concluded by passing award, depositing the compensation amount and by taking possession in the year 1999. The writ petition filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings failed. Subsequently, an application seeking re-conveyance of the acquired land was also not considered by the Government. Therefore, the writ Court in the order impugned ought not to have considered the case of the first respondent for granting the relief of declaration as if the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. When twin conditions as contemplated under the Act had been complied with, there is no reason to declare the acquisition proceedings as lapsed. Thus, the present writ appeals are to be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would oppose by stating that the procedures as contemplated were not followed. Possession was not taken in accordance with law. Deposit of compensation has not been done as stated by the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3. The learned single judge has considered the fact that the procedures to be followed for taking possession had not been complied. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings are to be declared as lapsed. The learned counsel for the first respondent would urge this Court by stating that the compensation has not been received by the first respondent. There was a huge delay in depositing the compensation amount. The compensation amount deposited before the City Civil Court, Chennai, in LAOP No.40/2012 was dismissed on 16.02.2018. In view of the above facts, the writ order is to be sustained.
6.Heard the parties.
7.The Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing 4(1) notification. Award was passed on 22.12.1988 in Award No.2/1988, quantifying the compensation as Rs.55,51,380.05. Perusal of the award reveals that deposit of compensation has been made and the Official Trustee, High Court of Madras and the Secretary Pachaiyappa’s Trust have appeared for award enquiry and stated that they are the only persons interested in the land. The relevant portion of the award extracted hereunder:
FUNDS:
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has
provided funds to the tune of Rs.55,51,380.05 for passing the award and the same was remitted into Reserve Bank of India vide Chalan No.2995, dt: 15.12.88 under the head of account
“843 Civil Deposit not bearing interest work deposit”
OWNERSHIP AND APPORTONMENT:
R.S.No. Extent Registered holder
2930/1 0.19.0317 1. Venkata Varadiah Maistry 2.Damodara Maistry minor by Varadammal.
2930/2 0.19.1007 – do –
2931 0.43.1387 – do –
2931/1 0.21.0491 Venkata Varadiah Maistry Damodara Maistry minor by grand mother
Adilakshmi ammal as per revenue records.
0.103.0802
The registered holder and their representative did not turn up for award enquiry conducted on 7.12.88. The official Trustee, High Court, Madras and the Secretary, Pachayappa’s Trust have appeared for award enquiry and stated that they are the only persons interested in the land.
The official Trustee, High Court, Madras claimed compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per ground for the land and Rs.15,000/- for the well. He has not produced any documentary evidences in support of his claim. One Thiru.Kupparam said to be a cultivation tenant of the above survey Nos. appeared for award enquiry and produced the copy of lease deed, dt:14.09.1954 and 9.12.1985 for the lease period upto 30.6.88. he has claimed in his statement a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per ground as compensation. He has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Moreover, the lease agreement is also expired on 30.6.88. He has not renewed his lease agreement beyond 30.6.88. Hence, his claim is baseless and his claim is rejected. The above lands belong to Kandasamy Naidu Estate vested with the official Trustee and the Administrative General, Madras in his capacity as Executor/Trustee of the Will dt:21.5.1948 probated on 5.10.1948 in O.P.No.278/4B. The Official Trustee is in possession of the land. But, he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove their title over the land. The pachayappa’s Trust has also not produced any documentary evidence to prove their interest over the land. The registered holders have also not appeared for the award enquiry. In the circumstances, the ownership could not be determined. Hence, the entire compensation amount of Rs.45,64,024.10 as stated below will be deposited in the City Civil Court, Madras under section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Land Value .. Rs.27,49,412.15
Structure value .. Rs. NIL
30% Solatium ..
12% increase for period 24.12.85 to Rs.8,24,823.65
22.12.88 (1095 days) .. Rs.9,89,788.30
——————–
Grand Total Rs.45,64,024.10
——————–
No compensation is awarded for the well as it is in a dilapidated condition at time of passing of award.
A reference will be made to the City Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act showing the names of the following persons as interested persons.
1. Venkatavaradian Maistry, Damodara Maistry minors by guardian Varadammal.

2. Venkatavaradiah Maistry Damodara Maistry represented by Aailakshmi ammal.
3.The Management of Pachayappa’s Trust.
4.The official Trustee and Administrator General,
Madras High Court.”
8.The Special Tahsildar land acquisition Unit – 3 Tamil Nadu
Housing Board vide his letter dated 04.09.2012 addressed a letter to the
Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai stating that an Award No.2/88 dated 22.12.1988 was passed for a total sum of Rs.55,51,380.05 towards compensation for the land owners of the subject lands acquired. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and by its order dated 04.10.2010 directed that the compensation amount due to the respondents which has been deposited with the Reserve Bank of India may be released to the respondent, with interest, if any. Accordingly, the particulars regarding the deposit made in the Reserve Bank of India along with the name of the beneficiary has been stated in the said letter.
9.Regarding possession, the writ Court in W.P.No.5640 of 1999 in its order dated 13.04.1999 recorded as follows:
“4. . . . . . . The fact remains that the petitioner has not
challenged the acquisition proceedings till the notice was issued by the respondents for taking possession of the land by the issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made and the award, dated 22.12.88 was passed. The Land Acquisition proceedings have been final on 23.12.88. Hence, having allowed the acquisition proceedings to become final, it is not open to the petition to challenge the acquisition proceedings, after nearly eleven years. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner trust and accordingly, it is dismissed. Since being a public trust the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Govt. for the release of the land from the acquisition proceedings and the first respondent may consider such request of the petitioner trust no costs. Connected Writ miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.”
10.The writ petition filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.37212 of 2005 seeking to consider the representation for re-conveyance of lands was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 18.11.2005 and based on the writ order the application seeking for re-conveyance was dismissed.

11.In view of the liberty granted by the writ court, an application seeking re-conveyance of land was filed under Section 48(b) of the Old Land acquisition Act, which was also negatived by the Government. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings became final in all respects by passing an award, making deposit of the compensation and taking possession of the property.
12.The Government order rejecting the re-conveyance of the land came to be challenged in W.P.No.10475 of 2007 and Division Bench of this Court passed orders on 23.08.2008 allowing the petition, on following terms;
“17.Under such circumstances, finding it difficult to sustain the reasons that weighed the Government in rejecting the request for re-conveyance , particularly as the government has not arrived at a subjective satisfaction as to whether the impugned lands are required or not for the purpose for which they were acquired or for any other purpose, we are inclined to quah the impugned proceedings dated 11.9.2006 as hereunder:
i.This writ petition is allowed and the order dated
11.9.2006, which is impugned in this writ petition, is quashed; ii.The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in the City Civil Court, Madras or the
Reserve Bank of India, as the case may be; iii.In view of the specific undertaking given by the AGOT to use the impugned lands, viz., an extent of 103 grounds 0796 sq.ft., along with the remaining lands, viz., an extent of 287 grounds 2208 sq.ft., only for the public charitable purpose and not to sell any piece of the lands to whomsoever, the State Govrnment shall pass appropriate orders re-conveying the impugned lands to the AGOT within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; iv.The AGOT is also at liberty to submit a proposal for floating a non-profit making company under Section 25 of the Companies Act with the State Government, retaining 51% share and offering the State Government balance 49% share in the proposed non-profit making company for its disposal, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Government shall take appropriate decision on such representation and pass necessary orders, as it may deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case within six weeks thereafter;
13.Regarding possession, even in the counter affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in W.P.No.16632 of 2016 the facts are stated as under;
” 13. I respectfully further submit that based on the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras the Government of Tamil Nadu have rejectd the request of the petitioner seeking reconveyace of land under Section 48(B) of Land Acquisition Act in their Letter No.26304/L.A 2(2)/2006-6, dated 11.09.2006, stating that an extent of 125 grounds and 2282 Sq.ft, of land at Purasawakkam Village was acquired for implementing Housing Scheme vide Award No.2/88, dated 22.12.1988. Out of 125 grounds 2282 Sq.ft., of land, the petitioner land measuring to an extent of 103 grounds 802 sq.ft. was already taken over by Tamil Nadu housing Board on 28.10.1999 and the physical possession of the land with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board since 28.10.1999. Howeve, the above lands belongs to Kandaswam Naidu
Estate and the issue vested with the Official Trustee and the Administrative General, High court, madras in his capacity as Executor/Trustee of the Will dated 21.5.1948 and the same probated on 05.10.1948 in OP No.278 of 48. However, they have not produced any documentary proof and evidence to prove heir respective rights and title over the acquired land. The Pachappa’s Trust has also not produced any documentary evidence to prove their interest over the lands under reference. The registered holders of the land did not appear for the award enquiry. In the above circumstances, the ownership could not be determined. Therefore, the entire compensation amount sum of
Rs.45,46,024.10, was deposited in the City Civil Court,
Chennai on 29.06.2012, under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the request of the petitioner for reconveyance of lands under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act for the extent of 103 grounds 0796 Sq.ft, in
Survey Nos.2930/1,2, 2931 and 2932/1 of Purasawkkam
Village, Chennai District was rejected vide Letter No.26304/L.A.2.2/2006-6, dated 11.09.2006.”
14.The scope of the challenge of the original land acquisition proceedings cannot be expanded while seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act of the year 2013. Therefore, once the land acquisition proceedings completed in all respects and the reconveyance application was rejected by the government, the erstwhile owners cannot challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Act once again for the purpose of seeking the declaration under
Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act of the year 2013.
15.Regarding possession, the Government letter dated 02.02.2015 reiterates that it was taken on 28.10.1999. Consistently the Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in various proceedings stated that possession was taken in the year 1999, and that being so, now the ground raised at this length of time deserves no merit consideration.
16.Therefore, if at all the compensation has not been received by the erstwhile owners of the acquired land, it is left open to them to withdraw the compensation amount along with interest, if any, by following the procedure as contemplated under law. However, the land acquisition proceedings completed in all respects even prior to the new Land acquisition Act of the year 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 possession as well as deposit of compensation were made even prior to the New Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the first respondent is not entitled for the relief as such granted by the Writ Court. Consequently, the writ order in W.P.No.16632 of 2016 dated 14.09.2022 is set aside. The Writ appeals are allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S.J) (C.S.N.J)
15.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No sms
To
1.The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Chennai.
2.The State of Tamil Ndu,
Repd by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600035.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition (VIII)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Nandanam,Chennai – 600 035.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J., and
C.SARAVANAN,J., sms
W.A.No.1251 of 2023 & CMP.No.12538 of 2023
& W.A.No.1252 of 2023 &
CMP.No.12539 of 2023
15.09.2025