K. Gunasekaran v. State of Tamilnadu

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Order dated 17.10.2022 in WP No.7811 of 2012 is sought to be assailed in the present intra Court appeal. The Writ Petitioners are the appellants before this Court.

¶2Writ Petition has been instituted to direct the 1st Respondent to re-convey or hold the Land Acquisition proceeding as lapsed of the lands in Survey Nos. 57/2 and 40/3B Manjapakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, measuring an extent of 1.18 acres and 0.06 acres respectively to petitioners as per the negotiation of land acquisition or in the alternative, to pay compensation to the Petitioners in accordance with the provision of the New Act (30 of 2013).

¶3Land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and proceedings culminated in passing of award in the year 1987. Writ Petition came to be instituted after a long time, raising a claim for reconveyance on the ground that land was not utilised for the purpose for which, it was acquired. Page3 of 5 Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition stating that, it is evident from the representation of the petitioner that compensation was paid by the acquisitioning body. Learned Single Judge further stated that once the petitioner raises the plea of lapsation under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, the relief of reconveyance under Section 48B of Act, 1894 would not enure to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners has filed the present writ appeal.

¶4Originally, lands were acquired by the Government for formation of a link road. However, the land was not used for the purpose due to realignment of the scheme. The acquisition proceedings culminated in the passing of award in the year 1987, and writ petitions came to be filed in the year 2012, seeking reconveyance of the land under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said Act was repealed and a new Land Acquisition Act of the year 2013 came into force. The reconveyance of the land by the Government cannot be done, since the Act is not in force and such power cannot be exercised. That apart, reconveyance cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The available remedy under the new Land Acquisition Act is under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, seeking lapse. Since the conditions for the land acquisition has been satisfied, there is no infirmity in the orders dated 17.10.2022 in WP No.7811 of 2012. Page4 of 5

¶5Accordingly, Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 02-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To

¶1State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Secretary To Govt., Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶2The District Collector District Collectorate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District

¶3The Divisional Engineer Project Division 1, Department Of Highways, Chennai-16

¶4The Special Thasildar (Land Acquisition), M.M.R.D.Schemes, Saidapet, Chennai-15 WAoNo.o2564oofo2022 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,eJ. GD WAeNo.e2564eofe2022 02-02-2026 Page5oofo5

2026:MHC:516 Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. K. Gunasekaran 2. K.Paramasivam 3. K. Neelabai 4. D.Sumathi 5. P.Rajeshwari ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Secretary To Govt., Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 2. The District Collector District Collectorate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District 3. The Divisional Engineer Project Division 1, Department Of Highways, Chennai-16 4. The Special Thasildar (Land Acquisition), M.M.R.D.Schemes, Saidapet, Chennai-15 ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 5 To set aside the order passed by the Court dated 17.10.2022 in WP No.7811 of 2012. For Appellant(s): Mr.K.P. Jotheeswaran For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader For R1 To 4