-
by sayum
16 February 2026 8:46 AM
“Even If Petitioner Didn't Get a Stay, the State Was Lawfully Restrained From Award Proceedings Due to Adjacent Owners' Writs” – Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a crucial verdict rejecting a landowner’s plea that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to inordinate delay in issuing the award under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Justice R. Vijayakumar, while dismissing the writ petition in Uma v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors., W.P.(MD) No. 29954 of 2025, held that the delay was attributable to court-imposed stays in connected cases, and thus, the statutory two-year limitation under Section 11-A stood effectively suspended.
The Court ruled that the petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of the land, lacked the legal standing to assail a completed acquisition, and that Article 300-A of the Constitution (right to property) did not override the validly concluded acquisition process.
“Subsequent Purchaser Has No Locus to Challenge Acquisition Already Completed” – Court Rejects Patta and Layout Claims
At the heart of the petitioner Uma’s argument was the assertion that the acquisition had lapsed because the award was made 11 years after the Section 6 declaration—Section 4(1) notification dated 04.08.1989, Section 6 declaration dated 01.10.1990, and award passed only on 04.06.2001. Uma, who acquired the land through a settlement deed dated 07.09.2012, also claimed that the property was part of a duly approved layout, and that patta had been mutated in her name by the revenue authorities.
However, the Court dismissed these contentions outright: “The petitioner having purchased the land after the date of award, would not have any right to contend that the acquisition proceedings have got lapsed for non-passing of the award as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act,” observed Justice Vijayakumar [Para 20].
The Court also noted that mere mutation of patta does not confer title and held that the petitioner’s reliance on her patta was misplaced, especially when the mutation was later reversed by the revenue authority, and that reversal had not been challenged by the petitioner.
Delay in Award Not Fatal Where Court Stay Was in Place — Applicability of Section 11-A Must Exclude Stay Period
Rejecting the plea of lapse under Section 11-A, the Court held that the delay in passing the award was not due to administrative inaction, but the direct consequence of interim stays granted by the High Court in connected cases filed by adjacent landowners under the same acquisition notification.
Referring extensively to Abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421, and Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 17, the Court emphasized that:
“When an order of interim stay has been granted even in respect of some of the landowners... the hands of the officials would be tied from proceeding under the Act.” [Para 18]
The Court elaborated that acquisition under a common notification demands collective proceedings, and selective progression (only for those not under stay) would lead to fragmentation of the acquisition process and jeopardize the public purpose of the project.
“No purpose would be served in passing the award with regard to some smaller extent of land... when the acquisition proceedings in respect of larger extent of land have been stayed by the High Court.” [Para 18]
The Court relied upon the findings of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 924 of 2012, which upheld the award by excluding the stay period, and further noted that the Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs arising from that judgment, thereby confirming the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
Right to Property Under Article 300-A Subject to Acquisition Process
The petitioner had also invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution, asserting that the public notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17.09.2025 for the allotment of 859 plots to economically weaker sections violated her right to property.
However, the Court found no merit in this constitutional plea. It held: “The petitioner being a post-acquisition title holder cannot claim title against the Housing Board under Article 300-A. Once the land is acquired by due process, subsequent purchasers cannot undo the acquisition by invoking property rights.” [Para 20]
The Court emphasized that the award, once passed in 2001, had vested the land in the State, and no challenge was ever raised by the original landowners. As such, the petitioner’s acquisition in 2012 was post facto and without any legal basis.
Court Cautions Against Misusing Revenue Records and Civil Sale Transactions to Challenge Public Acquisition
The Court was also critical of the increasing trend of landowners or subsequent purchasers seeking to undermine land acquisitions by relying on revenue records like patta or unregistered layout approvals. It clarified that:
“Ownership claim could not override completed acquisition process. Revenue records are not conclusive of title, especially when acquisition is complete.” [Para 19]
The Court pointed out that the patta in the petitioner’s name was cancelled by a District Revenue Officer order dated 23.04.2025, and the petitioner had not challenged that order—making her claim unsustainable.
Acquisition, Once Completed and Vested, Cannot Be Undone by Latecomers
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the acquisition process, initiated in 1989 and culminating in an award in 2001, had vested the land in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioner, having acquired the land more than a decade after the award, lacked both legal title and standing to question the Housing Board’s right to deal with the land.
“In view of the above said deliberations... the same plea cannot be raised by another adjacent land owner whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings.” [Para 20]
The writ petition was therefore dismissed, and the Court upheld the legality of the Housing Board’s 2025 notification for sale of plots.
Date of Decision: January 6, 2026
