Salem Family’s Claim To Still Occupy Acquired Land Fails At Madras HC, Which Cites Earlier Finding Housing Board Took Possession

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners established that they remained in possession of the acquired land so as to obtain relief against dispossession.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to quash the impugned letter or grant the requested restraint against dispossession.

It also directed

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed ownership and continuing possession of 2.72 acres in Allagapuram Pudur Village, Salem, which had been included in acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

pp. 3–6

Although awards were passed, they alleged that possession was not taken and compensation was neither paid nor deposited.

pp. 3–6

Their earlier challenge to the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had been allowed by a Single Judge, but the Housing Board’s appeals were allowed by a Division Bench; review applications were pending.

pp. 3–6

The petitioners challenged the Housing Board Executive Engineer’s letter dated 28 July 2026 and sought protection against dispossession, asserting that they remained in possession.

pp. 3–6

The Court noted that the Division Bench had found possession of specified lands had been taken and compensation deposited in the relevant land-acquisition original petitions.

pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners established that they remained in possession of the acquired land so as to obtain relief against dispossession.

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the impugned letter dated 28 July 2026 should be quashed, and the respondents restrained from dispossessing the petitioners, in light of the Division Bench’s prior findings on possession and compensation.

pp. 2, 6–7

03Law Applied

The acquisition was initiated under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners had invoked Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

pp. 6–7

Relying on the Division Bench’s application of Indore Development Authority, the Court treated possession taken over and compensation deposited as defeating the petitioners’ claim of lapse under Section 24(2).

pp. 6–7

The Court also stated that, for vacant land, possession follows title.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioners’ assertion that possession had not been taken against the Division Bench’s finding that a possession certificate recorded the taking over of specified lands and their handover to the Housing Board in 1999.

pp. 6–7

It also noted the Division Bench’s finding that compensation had been deposited in the relevant proceedings before the Sub Court, Salem.

pp. 6–7

On that basis, the Court rejected the petitioners’ possession claim as incorrect and held that their reliance on Section 24(2) was unsustainable; it further observed that the land was vacant and possession followed title.

pp. 6–7