Page 1

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8700 OF 2013

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association …..Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. …..Respondents

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8701 OF 2013; 8702 OF 2013;  8703 OF 2013;  AND 8704 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. These civil  appeals have been heard together because they involve  

common questions of law and fact and, therefore, they are being disposed of  

by this common judgment and order.   

2. Whereas in Civil Appeal No.8700 of 2013, filed by an Association of  

Residents  of  a  particular  locality,  the  challenge  is  to  the  order  of  

Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  bearing  G.O.  No.122  dated  14.07.1998  

containing  a  scheme  for  development  of  a  proposed  canal  by  name  

1

Page 2

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

Madhavaram  Left  Flank  Water  Surplus  Course,  on  the  ground  that  the  

scheme  is  misconceived  and  technically  flawed  which  shall  lead  to  

unnecessary acquisition of land and building belonging to the residents of  

the  affected  area,  the  other  Civil  Appeals  contain  specific  challenge  to  

proceedings  initiated  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (hereinafter  

referred to as, ‘the Act’) undertaken by the Tamil Nadu State Government  

for  the  purpose  of  implementation  of  the  said  scheme  covered  by  G.O.  

No.122 relating to the proposed canal improvement works.  The actual land  

acquisition  proceedings  commenced  with  issuance  of  Notification  under  

Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.02.2005, insofar as the lands under dispute are  

concerned.  The Award was made on 30.11.2006 but in the meantime as  

appears from the facts stated in C.A. No.8700 of 2013, upon a challenge  

made  to  the  Notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act,  the  High Court  

stayed dispossession of the concerned land holders by order dated 17.2.2005  

but ultimately the writ petitions and other tagged matters were dismissed on  

27.4.2007.  The matter reached this Court and as a result of an interim order  

passed by this Court on 18.05.2007 in C.A.No.8701 of 2013 [arising out of  

S.L.P.(C)No.9492 of 2007] the land holders have remained protected from  

being dispossessed from their lands in question.

2

Page 3

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

3. The various orders passed by this Court in these cases reveal that the  

matter was taken up in a much wider perspective in the light of larger issues  

raised in public interest that alternative scheme be also devised and taken  

into  account  to  prevent  unnecessary  displacement  of  large  number  of  

residents  and  with  a  view  to  protect  likely  pollution  of  some  lakes  on  

account of flood waters entering into such lakes and thereby affecting the  

cleanliness of possible sources for supply of drinking water.  This Court,  

long back on 10.02.2010 felt the need for and hence directed the respondents  

to  submit  a  revised  comprehensive  plan  of  the area  showing location of  

various  water  bodies,  the  construction  of  canal  which  had  already  taken  

place and the natural flow of water from Ambattur tank to Korattur tank and  

from Korattur tank to Capt. Cotton Canal.  On 31.03.2010, learned senior  

counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu referred to and submitted a final report  

by Mott MacDonald, an expert appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu  

to study the entire scheme and prepare Storm Water Drainage Master Plan  

for  Madras City and Pre-feasibility Study for  Madras Metropolitan Area.  

On going through the relevant portions of that Report, this Court decided to  

appoint  an expert  body to study the environmental  aspect  of  the scheme  

under challenge because the expert appointed by the State Government had  

suggested  further  study/monitoring  of  ground  water  outside  the  Chennai  

3

Page 4

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

Metropolitan  area.   By  order  dated  09.04.2010,  this  Court  appointed  a  

Committee  of  several  experts  under  the  Chairmanship  of  Hon’ble  Mr.  

Justice  Doraiswamy Raju,  a  former  Judge  of  this  Court.   The  terms  of  

reference included eight points and the Committee was requested to submit  

its report within three months.  The Committee’s report was made available  

to this Court,  belatedly and for one reason or the other, the matter could not  

be heard finally for a long period.  At the stage of hearing, on 10.07.2014,  

the State of Tamil Nadu expressed its willingness to explore the possibility  

of arriving at some consensus.  This course was adopted in view of relevant  

map and materials which showed that as a part of Chennai City Waterways  

Alignment of Surplus Course Package IV, considerable part of the proposed  

canal had already been constructed but the balance part remained incomplete  

only on account of present proceedings against acquisition of lands for the  

purpose.  However, the High Level Committee meeting under Chairmanship  

of the Chief Secretary of the State involving the petitioners in public interest  

litigation as well as representatives of the land owners’ Association could  

not prove fruitful.

4. In the meanwhile, on account of a subsequent legislation – The Right  

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation  

and Resettlement  Act,  2013 (for  brevity,  ‘2013 Act’)  coming into  effect  

4

Page 5

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

from 01.01.2014, through I.A. No.3 filed in Civil Appeal No.8701 of 2013, a  

plea was raised on behalf of the appellants that the appeals be allowed in  

terms  of  Section  24(2)  of  the  2013  Act  by  holding  that  the  acquisition  

proceeding initiated under the Act has lapsed.  

5. The parties have been heard only on this narrow legal aspect to find  

out whether the appellants’ prayer noted above deserves to be allowed in  

view of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act or not.  In view of the order proposed, we  

find  it  futile  to  refer  to  and  discuss  the  facts  involved  in  different  civil  

appeals.  Section 24 of 2013 Act is as follows :    

“24.  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any  case  of  land  acquisition  proceedings  initiated  under  the  Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, -  

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land  Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this  Act  relating  to  the  determination  of  compensation  shall  apply; or

(b)  where an award under said section 11 has been made,  then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of  the said Land Acquisition Act,  as if  the said Act has not  been repealed.

(2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section  (1),  in  case  of  land  acquisition  proceedings  initiated  under  the  Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11  has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of  this Act but the physical possession of the land has not  been  taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings  shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government,  

5

Page 6

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

if  it  so  chooses,  shall  initiate  the  proceedings  of  such  land  acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided  that  where  an  award  has  been  made  and  compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not  been  deposited  in  the  account  of  the  beneficiaries,  then,  all  beneficiaries  specified in  the notification  for  acquisition  under  section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to  compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

6. It  has  been contended by learned senior  counsel  appearing for  the  

appellants  that  in  view of  the  non  obstante clause  in  sub-section  (2)  of  

Section 24, notwithstanding an award passed under Section 11 of the Act in  

respect of acquisition proceedings under challenge, such proceedings cannot  

continue under the provisions of the Act because the award was made on  

30.11.2006,  i.e.,  more  than  five  years  earlier  and  undisputedly  physical  

possession of the land of the concerned appellants has not been taken as yet.  

It  has  further  been  contended  that  proceedings  have  lapsed  because  in  

several cases the alleged payment is only by way of deposit in treasury on  

30.03.2007 and not by deposit in Court, as required by law.  Reliance has  

been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of  Pune Municipal  

Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3  

SCC 183 in support of the contention that compensation cannot be said to  

have been paid only by its deposit with the Revenue authorities such as the  

Government  treasury,  it  can  be  accepted  to  have  been  paid  only  if  it  is  

6

Page 7

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

actually  paid  to  the  land  owner  or  is  deposited  in  the  Court  as  per  

requirement of Section 31 of the Act.  For showing that at least in the case of  

some land holders, the compensation was simply deposited in the Revenue  

Deposit Account in the sub-treasury and not in the concerned Court, a letter  

of Spl. Thasildar (LA), Chennai Corporation Waterways Project, Ambattur,  

Chennai,  dated  30.03.2007 has  been annexed  with  I.A.  No.3  of  2014 in  

C.A.No.8701 of 2013.

7.  In reply Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG for the State of Tamil Nadu  

has produced some charts and documents to submit that compensation has  

been deposited in several cases with the concerned Civil Court also and in  

some cases the payments have been accepted by the land owners.  However,  

even as per  the chart  containing details  of  award and payments  for  3.31  

hectares  of  land  involved  in  the  case  of  Vishwanathan  &  Ors.  in  C.A.  

No.8701 of 2013 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9492 of 2007] an amount of  

Rs.26,73,851/- is shown to be lying in Revenue deposit whereas only for a  

small portion of land an amount of Rs.5,50,056/- is in Civil Court deposit.  

However,  this  issue  need not  be pursued any further  because  admittedly  

physical possession of the land involved in these appeals has not been taken  

over by the State and on that account alone, the land acquisition proceeding  

under challenge will have to be treated or declared as lapsed unless we find  

7

Page 8

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

merit in the contention raised on behalf of State that this plea cannot be used  

against the State because it was prevented from taking physical possession  

of the lands on account of interim orders passed by the High Court and this  

Court.  

8. There  is  no  dispute  that  writ  petitions  were  filed  even  before  the  

making of award and interim orders have operated against the State of Tamil  

Nadu  and,  therefore,  the  State  was  not  at  fault  in  not  taking  physical  

possession of the concerned lands under acquisition.  But the intention of the  

Legislature in enacting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act will have to be culled  

out from its wordings and on the basis of other relevant provisions of this  

Act  and  the  relevant  case  law  for  deciding  whether  the  period  of  

stay/injunction is required to be excluded in computing the five years’ period  

or not.

9.   From a plain reading of Section 24 of the 2013 Act it is clear that  

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the  

land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of stay  

or injunction granted by any court.   In the same Act, proviso to Section  

19(7) in the context of limitation for publication of declaration under Section  

19(1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the market value  

of the land in the context of delay between preliminary notification under  

8

Page 9

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

Section 11 and the date of the award, specifically provide that the period or  

periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of  

any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing  

the relevant period.  In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that  

the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years  

indicated  in  Section  24(2)  even if  the  proceedings  had  been  delayed on  

account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any  

reason.  Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in view of law  

on the subject  elaborately discussed by this Court  in the case of  Padma  

Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533.

10. Even  in  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  of  1894,  the  Legislature  had  

brought about amendment in Section 6 through an Amendment Act of 1984  

to  add  Explanation  1  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  the  period  when  the  

proceeding suffered stay by an order of the court, in the context of limitation  

provided for publishing the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act.  To a  

similar  effect  was  Explanation  to  Section  11A  which  was  added  by  

Amendment Act 68 of 1984.  Clearly the Legislature has, in its wisdom,  

made the period of five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act absolute  

and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings on account of any order of  

stay by a court.  The plain wordings used by the Legislature are clear and do  

9

Page 10

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

not create any ambiguity or conflict.  In such a situation, the court is not  

required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation.

11. It was faintly suggested by Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG  

for the State of Tamil Nadu that the proviso may come to the rescue of the  

State and save the proceedings from suffering lapse if it is held that since  

there was an award leading to payment of compensation in respect of some  

of the land holdings only, therefore all the beneficiaries may now be entitled  

to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.  This  

contention  could  have  been  considered  with  some  more  seriousness  if  

physical possession of the land had been taken but since that has not been  

done, the proviso dealing only with compensation cannot be of any help to  

the State.  Therefore, we are not required to go deeper into the effect and  

implications of the proviso which prima facie appears to be for the benefit of  

all  the land holders  in  a  case  where the award is  subsisting  because  the  

proceedings have not lapsed and compensation in respect of majority of land  

holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries.  There is  

nothing in the language of the proviso to restrict the meaning of the words  

used in Section 24(2) mandating that the proceedings shall  be deemed to  

have lapsed if the award is five years or more than five years’ old but the  

physical possession of the land has not been taken over or the compensation  

10

Page 11

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

has not been paid.  The law is trite that when the main enactment is clear and  

unambiguous, a proviso can have no effect so as to exclude from the main  

enactment by implication what clearly falls within its express terms, as held  

by Privy Council in the case of Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway  

Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality  AIR 1944 PC 71 and by this Court in  

the case of C.I.T. v. Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd.  AIR 1959 SC 713.

12. The judgment  of  three  Judges’  Bench in the case  of  Harakchand  

Misirimal (supra) has been followed by another Bench of three Judges in  

the case of Union of India & Ors. etc. v. Shivraj & Ors. etc. (2014) 6 SCC  

564.  In paragraphs 25 and 26 of that judgment, this Court took notice of a  

clarification  issued  by  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Urban  

Development,  Delhi  Division  dated  14.03.2014.   Part  of  the  circular  

extracted in that case clearly shows that the period of five years or more in  

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been prescribed with a view to benefit the  

land-losers and the period spent in litigation due to challenge to the award or  

the land acquisition proceedings cannot be excluded.

13. From the discussions made above, it is amply clear that though there  

is  lack  of  clarity  on  the  issue  whether  compensation  has  been  paid  for  

majority of land holdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that  

physical  possession  of  the  lands  belonging  to  the  appellants  under  

11

Page 12

C.A.No.8700/13 etc.  

consideration in these appeals has not been taken by the State or any other  

authority  on  its  behalf  and  more  than  five  years  have  elapsed  since  the  

making of the award dated 30.11.2006 and 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act  

came into force.  Therefore, the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the  

2013 Act are satisfied for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land  

acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section  

24(2) of the 2013 Act.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly.  It goes  

without saying that the Government of Tamil Nadu shall  be free, if it  so  

chooses to initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance  

with the provisions of 2013 Act.  In the facts and circumstances of the case  

there shall be no order as to costs.

     ..…………………………………………………….J.       [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

      ……………………………………………………..J.                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. September 10, 2014.

12