Madras HC allows TNHB to take possession of 103 grounds of Pachaiyappas Trust land

CHENNAI: In a victory to the state government in taking possession of 103 grounds of land in Purasawalkam in Chennai, the Madras High Court has set aside a single judges order that quashed the 1985 land acquisition proceedings. A bench of justices S M Subramaniam and C Saravanan passed the orders while allowing the appeal filed by CMD of TNHB.The appeal was filed for setting aside the order passed on September 14, 2022 on the petitions filed by the Administrator General and Official Trustee (AGOT) by the single judge who had held that the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed as the possession was not taken. The case goes back to the notification issued on October 30, 1985, for acquiring 103 grounds in Purasawalkam belonging to the Pachaiyappas Trust. TNHB passed the award for acquisition on December 22, 1988, and a compensation of Rs 55.51 lakh was deposited. A writ plea against the acquisition was filed in 1999 and the court dismissed the petition. In 2022, the single judge ordered in favour of the AGOT allowing writ pleas challenging the governments decision to reject the application for reconveyance of the land. Challenging this, TNHB filed appeal. AAG P Kumaresan, assisted by special govt pleader S Senthilmurugan, appearing for the secretary of housing department 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, appearing 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 received 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 acquisition 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 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, the bench said.