Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: K. Bhuvaneswari, owner of 1 acre 41 cents comprising Survey No. 67 (0.72 cents) and Survey Nos. 68/1, 68/2 (0.69 cents) at Alapakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, where she operates a rice mill.
  • Respondents: Government of Tamil Nadu (Housing and Urban Development Department), Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Chairman, Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar).
  • The land was acquired under a notification dated 17 July 1989 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a Tamil Nadu Housing Board housing scheme; Award No. 4 dated 28 August 1992 fixed compensation of Rs 41,636, which was deposited with the Civil Court, Chengalpattu under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Old Act.
  • The appellant repeatedly sought re‑conveyance; an interim stay of dispossession was granted on 5 August 2009 (W.P. 15422 of 2009). After the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 came into force (1 Jan 2014), she filed W.P. 3560 of 2016 requesting a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing that possession had not been taken and compensation not paid.
  • Respondents produced a counter‑affidavit showing possession of Survey Nos. 68/1 and 68/2 was taken on 17 July 2006; only Survey No. 67 remained with the appellant due to the 2009 interim stay. They also produced documentary evidence (office letter Rc.No. 159/88, demand draft dated 20 Oct 1992, Form of Reference, Appendix C) confirming the Rs 41,636 award was deposited in the Civil Court in January 1992.
  • The Single Judge held that the award was deposited and possession taken, so the conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were not satisfied.
  • The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020 8 SCC 129), interpreting the “or” in Section 24(2) conjunctively; both non‑possession and non‑payment must exist for a lapse. The deposit of compensation and partial possession satisfied the statutory requirements, defeating the appellant’s claim.

Final Outcome

  • The writ appeal (W.A. No. 2555 of 2026) is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order as to costs; connected interim applications are closed.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Compensation Deposit, Legal Interpretation