Madras High Court Dismisses Scheduled Caste Villagers' Plea Against Forcible Eviction For Madurai Airport Expansion, Upholds State's Power To Take Possession After Fair Compensation And Alternate Housing Offer
Safiya Malik
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan dismissed writ petitions filed by over 300 Scheduled Caste families residing in Chinna Udaippu, Ayyanpappakudi Village, Madurai, who sought to resist eviction from lands acquired by the State government for the expansion and upgrade of Madurai Airport into an international airport. The court found that the government had acted fairly, having extended enhanced compensation and offered alternate developed land with housing assistance, and directed the families to vacate within two weeks.
The State Government initiated acquisition proceedings in 2009 pursuant to a decision to upgrade Madurai Airport as an International Airport, covering more than 633 acres across several villages. The petitioners contended that though compensation was paid in most cases, eviction notices were issued without providing rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They sought protection from eviction and challenged Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the 1997 Act as unconstitutional unless read with the Central Act and the Tamil Nadu Revival Act, 2019.
The State argued that acquisition proceedings were completed prior to the 2013 Act, compensation was disbursed, and possession had been taken in over 90% of the lands. It submitted that Section 24 of the 2013 Act applied only to compensation and not rehabilitation. The Airports Authority of India stated that project implementation was delayed due to non-vacation of remaining lands.
The Bench recorded that “lands belonged to more than 3090 pattadars covering six villages and number of hamlets were acquired and possession was taken and compound wall was constructed except in the petitioner's village.” It noted that “There had been no challenge of acquisition proceedings at any point of time. Therefore, as per the Act, the land acquired is vested with government free from all encumbrance.”
On the challenge to Sections 4(2) and 4(3), the Court observed that “the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated 29.06.2021 in G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, upheld the validity of the Act.” It further recorded that “once the parent Act was revalidated, the existing Rules automatically became applicable.” Consequently, it held that “the provisions of the Central Act of 2013 have no application to the acquisition proceedings which had already been initiated and substantially completed under the earlier enactment.”
With respect to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the Court stated that “Entire gamut of Section 24 of the Act, confers only entitlement of compensation under the New Act. They never discuss about the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlement.” It added, “Section 24 of the Act, has no application and the claim of the petitioners seeking the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement under the Central Act is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained in law.”
The Bench also recorded that “the Government, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has extended the benefit of enhanced compensation in line with the principles embodied in the said Central Act, 2013.” It noted that “none of the acquired lands were agricultural lands” and that “there is absolutely no material placed before this Court to establish that the petitioners were carrying on agricultural activities.”
On the petitioners’ continued occupation, the Court stated that “their continuous objection in preventing the taking over of the possession… establishes their clear intention to obstruct the project without any bona fides.” It concluded that “the act of the writ petitioner to occupy the land after the receipt of the compensation… is nothing but abuse of process of law and also amounts to unjust enrichment.”
The Court directed that “The writ petitioners in both writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.29208 and 27922 of 2024 are hereby directed to vacate the premises within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise it is open to the government to take the possession by using force as authorised under Section 4 of the State Act, 10 of 1999. The writ petitioners in both writ petitions are hereby directed to submit their consent letter to the Collector, Madurai District, to receive 2 cents lands as offered by the government within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
“The Collector, Madurai District, to allot the 2 cents of land within the further period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the consent letter from each individuals and upon consideration of their eligibility, allot the same.” It also directed the authorities “to issue necessary orders for construction of the house under the scheme at the cost of the State as agreed before this Court.” The writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.29208 and 27922 of 2024 were dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
“Accordingly, the writ petition in WP(MD)No.28131 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Lenin Prabu; Mr. A. Haja Mohideen
For the Respondents: Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. D. Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. C. Godwin; Mr. P. Sundaravadivel
Case Title: P. Malairajan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(MD) Nos.27922, 28131 and 29208 of 2024
Bench: Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
