Madrascav High Court · 2015

- - -O R D E RThe short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioners submit that when their father was alive,he was owning agricultural land situated in S.No.83/3,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District to the extentof 2.59 acres and 0.27 acres situated in S.No.83/2 of land,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. In the year1981, the Tamil Nadu Government acquired their land to the extentof 2.59 acres and 0.27 acres exclusively belonging to Gandhimathi,the first petitioner herein and the said land was acquired for thepurpose of implementing the Housing Scheme i.e., construction ofhouses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In this connection, theGovernment of Tamil Nadu issued 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.371,Housing and Urban Development Department dated 03.06.1981, afterthat under Section 6 Declaration was published in G.O.Ms.No.449,Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12.06.1984, butsubsequently after a lapse of two years, the award has been passedon 19.09.1986 in Award No.13 of 1986-1987.

2. The petitioners further submit that after acquisitionof their land in the year 1981, the Housing Board had not at allimplemented any scheme for construction of houses in their land.While their father was alive, he was enjoying the said land evenafter demise of their father, they are enjoying the said land andtill today they are in possession of the said land. Thepetitioners further submit that since they are agriculturists theyare not fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings as well asthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and after consultinglaw knowing persons, then only they came to understand that theyshould ask for re-conveyance as they should make writtenrepresentation under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act insteadof sending written representation for exclusion of their land fromLand Acquisition Proceedings.

3. The petitioners further submit that they came tounderstand that this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Courtwas pleased to pass orders with regard to re-conveyance of theland to the original owners on the ground that, if the Governmentor Housing Board have not implemented the housing scheme, i.e.,construction of the houses for more than 15 years to 20 years, thenthe landowners are entitled to get relief under the provisions ofLand Acquisition Act, specifically under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act. Accordingly, they made written representationrequesting the first respondent herein to re-convey the land underSection 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners furthersubmit that the first respondent also aware that this Court was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pleased to pass orders in the batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.422of 2011 etc., dated 14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance ofland."It is seen that theme batch of writ petitions arenot the first set of cases, which were decided by thisCourt, challenging the same acquisition proceedings. Itappears that the first batch of writ petitions were filedduring 1994 being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc., challengingthe Section 4(1) Notification, the writ petitions weredisposed of by a common judgment, dated 20.03.2001, byobserving that it may not be proper for the StateGovernment, to spend huge public money for theacquisition proceedings, to acquire the lands of thepetitioners therein with superstructure and keep the landidle, if the scheme could not be successfullyimplemented. Therefore, this Court permitted thepetitioners therein to approach the Government seekingexemption of re-conveyance. Another batch of cases werefiled during 1996 in W.P.Nos.9747 to 9749 of 1996,challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1)and Section 6 of the Act and the notifications were set-aside, with the further observation that the Governmentwill take into account ground realities before proceedingwith the acquisition. The other writ petitionchallenging the same acquisition proceedings inDr.N.Natarajan Vs. Government reported in TNMANU/TN/0526/2020 was allowed and the notification wasquashed. In Chinnayyagounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,2003(2) MLJ 481, the challenge was to the sameacquisition proceedings and the writ petition was allowedand the acquisition was quashed. While allowing the saidwrit petition, the Court took note of the fact that theywere approved layouts and even as per the policy of theGovernment, those lands are not to be acquired. It isseen that the Division Bench of this Court in more thanone decision has quashed the Land Acquisition Proceedingsin respect of the same scheme. In Arumuga Gounder Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006, theHon'ble Division Bench presided by Justice P.Sathasivam(as he then was observed that the entire KalapattiNeighbourhood Scheme has not been implemented till dateand several orders have been passed by this Court,quashing the acquisition proceedings. In M.Duraisamy Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007(3) MLJ 288, anotherDivision Bench of this Court, quashed a notification, inrespect of the same scheme and observed that it is not indispute that the entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Schemehas been dropped in view of the several orders passed bythis Court. In Tmt.Leelavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in MANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani andanother Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ1416, the learned Single Judges of this Court havequashed the notifications and took note of the fact thatthe entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has beendropped. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold thatthe learned Single Judge was perfectly justified infollowing the earlier Division Bench Judgment andallowing the writ petitions, wherever prayer was made forquashing the acquisition proceedings. As noticed above, in the earlier batch of appeals,this Court after taking note of the decisions in WritPetition Nos.12201 of 1994 etc., batch dated 20.03.2001,Dr.N.Natarajan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported inMANU/TN/0526/2020, Chinnayyagounder Vs. State of TamilNadu reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 481, Arumuga Gounder Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006,M.Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007(3)MLJ 288, Tmt.Leelavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reportedin MANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani and another Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1416,quashed the Notification, and held that the learnedSingle Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the writpetitions by following the earlier Division BenchJudgments. In view of the matter, we have no hesitation to holdthat the issues raised in these batch of appeals aresquarely covered by the earlier decisions rendered bythis Bench in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 2011, dated16.08.2011 and also taking note of the fact that thereare several Division Bench decisions of this Court,quashing the notifications in respect of the same schemeon identical grounds. Therefore, we see no reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned SingleJudge in allowing the writ petitions and also in anotherbatch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 201, dated16.08.2011 (2011 (5) CTC 503) were disposed in favour ofthe landowners and yet another judgment delivered by theDivision Bench of this Court by citing the Hon'bleSupreme Court Judgment made in the case of Hariram Vs.State of Haryana (2010 (2) CTC 336) with regard to re-conveyance to the original owners passed orders inW.A.Nos.1652 of 2010 etc., (2010 (5) CTC 261), wherebyobserved that if the land is not utilized for whichpurpose was acquired for very long time, then thelandowners are entitled to get an order from theGovernment for re-conveying their land." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The petitioners further submit that in the saidcircumstances, they made request before the first respondent topass order under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act for re-conveying their land situated in S.No.83/3, AyyamperumalpattiVillage, Salem Taluk and District to the extent of 2.59 acres and0.27 acres situated in S.No.83/2 of land to them. In thisconnection, they made written representation on 11.01.2013 and inthat written representation, they expressed their readiness to paywhatever the necessary cost spent by the first respondent foracquisition proceedings. After receipt of the said representation,the third respondent who does not have any power or jurisdiction toreject their request as per Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Actand only the Government alone, i.e., the first respondent hereinhaving power to pass orders under Section 48-B of Land AcquisitionAct. But, now the third respondent passed the impugned order in hisLetter No.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013, whereby rejecting theirrequest for re-conveyance of the said land. Hence, the petitionersentreat the Court to allow the above writ petition.

5. The first respondent has not filed any counterstatement in the above writ petition. However, the first respondentherein has filed a counter statement in the connected writ petitionin W.P.No.6119 of 2013. The highly competent counsel appearing forthe first respondent requests this Court that the counter statementfiled in the connected writ petition in W.P.No.6119 of 2013, may betaken into consideration in the above writ petition also since thefacts are one and the same. The counter statement filed by thefirst respondent in Writ Petition No.6119 of 2013, reads asfollows:-(i) The first respondent submits that the Tamil NaduHousing Board of Salem Housing Unit has proposed acquisition oflands for Housing Scheme in S.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extentof 42.69 acres including petitioner's land Salem ofAyyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. TheNotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Central Act 1 of 1894) (herein after referred to as "the Act") wasapproved in G.O.(Ms)No.455, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 23.06.1981 and was published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette No.28/A at Pages 3 and 4 Supplemental to Part IISection 2, dated 22.07.1981. The enquiry under Section 5-A of theLand Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 21.12.1981. The 3(b) enquiry wasconducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme,Salem on 07.06.1982. The first respondent further submits that theDraft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was approved inG.O.(Ms)No.538, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated07.07.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 in the Extraordinaryissue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28, dated 18.07.1984. TheAward enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Neighbourhood Scheme on 12.09.1986 for the above said land. Theaward was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NeighbourhoodScheme, Salem for an extent of 29.86 acres including thepetitioner's land. The first respondent further submits that as perthe award report bearing S.F.No.82/1 measuring an extent of 2.74acres stands registered in the Name of Srinivasan, Palanisamy,Prakasam, Namachivayam S/o.Duraisamy. The compensation amountawarded to them of Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 was depositedinto Sub Court, Salem by the Land Acquisition Officer. (ii) The first respondent further submits that the abovesaid lands was taken over on 19.11.1986 from the Special Tahsildar(LA). These lands could not be utilized by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard for Housing Scheme since the surrounding lands are underCourt case. After disposal of the case, the layout was preparedthrough approach from Varama Garden Private Road and got approvedby the Board vide Town Planning / Tamil Nadu Housing BoardNo.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the Salem LocalPlanning Authority and they approved the road pattern. Based onthat the scheme proposal for construction of various types ofhouses has been submitted to Board, which is under scrutiny forgetting approval. The first respondent further submits that theTamil Nadu Government acquired the lands in Salem District andTaluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Village bearing S.F.No.68/3 etc.,measuring an extent of 42.69 acres including the petitioners landin S.F.No.82/1 (2.74 acres) for the purpose of constructing housesby the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the general public. The LandAcquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, awarded compensation forthe petitioners land of Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 which wasdeposited in Sub Court, Salem. After passing of the award (AwardNo.7/86-87, dated 23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the LandAcquisition Officer and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on19.11.1986. Now, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board got approval from theDirector of Town and Country Planning for layout for constructionof 262 Houses and flats and also the Tamil Nadu Government hasprovided a sum of Rs.4,572.00 Lakhs for the construction works.(iii) The first respondent further submits that thepetitioner was fully aware about the Land Acquisition Proceedings.The petitioner now requested re-conveyance of the land for the saidland already in possession has been taken and the scheme also goingto be implemented. In these circumstances, re-conveyance of theland is impossible. The first respondent further submits that thepetitioner has given a representation on 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance of the land. The requisition also rejected by theManaging Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioner'sallegation is that the third respondent rejected the petitioner'srequisition is false. The second respondent who is the superior tothe third respondent rejected the petitioner's requisition. Thefirst respondent further submits that the Ho'ble High Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Annavasal Panchayat Union Rep. by its ChairmanAnnavasal and others (2012 (2) CTC 389) observed as follows:-"Application of Section 48-B will arise only if therequisitioning body did not use the land for the purposefor which it was acquired." In the instant case, land had been put to use for purpose for whichit was acquired. Thus invocation of Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act for re-conveyance of land would not arise in thissituation. The first respondent further submits that this Court inS.Balasubramaniam Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another (2012 (4) CTC 510) observedas follows:-"As the value of the property has gone up. Thepetitioner attempts to get the property by abusing theprocess of Court, after a lapse of 60 years. As the valueof the properties is sky rocketing, the petitioner istrying his luck by these proceedings and such a claim isnot sustainable in law. If the claims like petitioner areentertained by this Court, it will open a Pandora's boxthereby many claims by erstwhile owners, whose propertieswere acquired for public purposes, would be made and itwould not be in the interest of public. The mattersalready reached finality about 50 years ago and the samecannot be reopened. Rights of the parties already gotcrystallized long back and the needle of the clock cannotbe put in reverse. The claim itself is against the publicinterest, which has to be rejected in limini." "When such is the position, the petitioner cannotapproach the respondents for re-conveyance of the landwhich was acquired over decades in age. The attempt ofthe petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.For having indulged in abuse of process of law and soughtfor re-conveyance of the property, which was acquired asearly as 1949, the petitioner is liable to be slappedwith very heavy cost. However, due to judicial restraint,this Court is not awarding any cost. Accordingly, thewrit petition is dismissed with the above observations."The first respondent further submits that with respect to thepetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986. After passingof the award, the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard on 19.11.1986. The Director of Town and Country Planning alsoapproved proposal for layout for construction of 262 houses andflats. Hence, the first respondent entreats the Court to dismissthe writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit andopposed the writ petition. The third respondent further submitsthat the Tamil Nadu Housing Board of Salem Housing Unit hasproposed acquisition of lands for housing scheme in S.F.No.83/1etc., measuring an extent of 44.34 acres including petitioner'sland in Salem of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk andDistrict. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing & UrbanDevelopment Department dated 03.06.1981 and was published in TamilNadu Government Gazette No.23/A at pages 8 to 18 supplemental toPart II Section 2 dated 17.06.1981 and the errata published insupplemental Part II Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government GazetteNo.31A, dated 12.08.1981 at page No.

5. The enquiry under Section 5Aof the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar(LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 12.10.1981. The 3(b) enquirywas conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem on18.03.1982. The third respondent further submits that DraftDeclaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act wasapproved in G.O.Ms.No.449, Housing & Urban Development Departmentdated 12.06.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 in the extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.248, dated14.06.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme on 11.09.1986 for the abovesaid land. The award was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem for an extent of 13.99 acres includingthe petitioners' land. As per the award report bearing theS.F.No.83/2 measuring an extent of 0.27 acres stands registeredjointly in the name of Ramalingam, Thirisangu sons of PerumalGounder, Muthayammal, W/o. (Late) Komara Gounder, Varadappan,Natesan, Namperumal, Kandasamy, Subramaniam, Rajalakshmi. TheS.F.No.83/3 measuring an extent of 3.59 acres stands registeredjointly in the name of Thirisangu S/o.Perumal Gounder, ManokaranS/o.Dharmalingam. They are given consent to get the compensationwith objection for higher compensation. Hence, the compensationamount awarded to them of Rs.93,085.30 for S.F.No.83/2 andRs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/3 was deposited into Sub Court, Salemby the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. The third respondent further submits that the land inS.F.No.83/3 was taken over possession on 09.11.1995 from theSpecial Tahsildar (LA). These lands could not be utilizedimmediately by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Housing Schemesince the surroundings lands are under Court litigation. Afterdisposal of the case, the layout was prepared through approach fromVarama Garden private road and got approved by the Board videTP/TNHB No.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the SalemLocal Planning Authority and they have approved the road pattern.Based on that, the scheme proposal for construction of various https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ types of houses has been submitted to the Board, which was approvedby the Board meeting vide B.R.No.4.01, dated 25.03.2013. The thirdrespondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Government acquiredthe lands in Salem District and Taluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Villagebearing S.F.No.83/1 etc., measuring to an extent of 44.34 acresincluding the petitioners land in S.F.No.83/2 and 83/3 forconstructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the public.The Land Acquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, awardedcompensation for the petitioner's land of Rs.93,085.30 &Rs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/2 and 83/3 which was deposited in SubCourt, Salem. After passing of the Award (Award No.13/86-87, dated23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the Land AcquisitionOfficer and handed over (S.F.No.83/3) to Tamil Nadu Housing Boardon 09.11.1995. Now, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted thelayout for approval from the Salem Local Planning Authority forconstruction of various types of houses and flats and they haveapproved the road pattern. The Scheme proposal for theconstruction of 262 Units have been approved by the Board forRs.3834.00 Lakhs for the construction of works. The thirdrespondent further submits that the petitioner was fully awareabout the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitioner nowrequested re-conveyance of the land for the said land already inpossession has been taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board andscheme is also going to be implemented benefiting the generalpublic at large. In these circumstances, re-conveyance of the landis not impossible. The third respondent further submits that thepetitioners have given a representation on 11.01.2013 requestingre-conveyance of the land. The requisition also rejected by therequisitioning body of Tamil Nadu Housing Board since the land isessentially required for a comprehensive Housing Scheme benefitingthe public.

8. The third respondent further submits that the Hon'bleHigh Court in 2012 (2) CTC 389 observed as follows:-"The Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) Section48-B Application under Section 48-B will arise only whenrequisitioning body did not use land for purpose forwhich it was acquired. In the instant case, land had beenput to use for purpose for it was acquired - Thusinvocation of Section 48-B for re-conveyance of landwould not arise in this situation."The third respondent further submits that the Hon'ble High Court in2012(4) CTC 510 observed as follows:-"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48-B, Re-conveyance of land - petitioner seeking re-conveyance of land acquired for purpose of burial groundin the year 1949 - representation made by petitioner, wasrejected by Government - Matter has reached finalityabout sixty years ago and same cannot be reopened - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rights of parties has already crystallized along back andneedle of clock cannot be put in reverse - petitionercannot compel Government to re-convey land after sixdecades - Government has stated that land is needed forpublic purposes - Only after subjective satisfaction thatland is not required. Government can transfer toerstwhile owner - It is not mandatory for Government totransfer such lands - Petitioner attempts to get propertyby abusing process of Court after a lapse of sixty years- Since value of property is sky rocketing, petitioner istrying his luck - If claim made by petitioner isentertained, it will open a Pandora's Box - petitioner isnot having any right over property - He can at best becalled a stranger with a false claim - Due to rise inpopulation there is increasing number of deaths -Expansion of burial ground is certainly a necessity -writ petition dismissed." The third respondent further submits that with respect topetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986. After passingof the Award, the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard on 09.11.1995 by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem. TheLocal Planning Authority, Salem has approved the road pattern. TheBoard for a sum of Rs.3834.00 lakhs on 25.03.2012 has approved thescheme proposal for the construction of 262 units under HIG, MIG &EWS houses. Hence, the third respondent entreats the Court todismiss the above writ petition.

9. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearingfor the petitioners submits that the first respondent had issued 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment dated 03.06.1981, for acquiring the petitioners' landunder the Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was published on12.06.1984. Subsequently, after a lapse of two years, the award hasbeen passed in Award No.13 of 1986-1987. As such, the award hasnot been passed within two years as per law. Therefore, theacquisition proceeding has become lapsed. He further submits thatthe petitioners are agriculturists and they are depending upon thecultivation of their land for their livelihood. The petitionerswere not aware of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitionersmade a representation on 11.01.2013 under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act for re-conveyance of the land to them since theacquired lands are kept vacant. The respondents had notimplemented the Neighbourhood Scheme for the past 25 years. Assuch, the original purpose was defeated. Further, the petitionershave not received any compensation for their lands. Further, therespondents have taken a symbolic possession of the land, but notin actuality in terms of physical possession. Therefore, thepetitioners are entitled to seek relief under Section 24(2) of theNew Act 30 of 2013. The highly competent counsel has cited a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment in Writ Appeal No.422 of 2011, etc., in which, thelandowners have obtained remedy for re-conveyance and as such, thepetitioners are entitled to receive similar remedy since theinstant case is also similar in nature. The highly competentcounsel has cited the following judgments in support of hiscontentions:-(i) W.P.Nos.8497 and 8498 of 2000, (dated 12.08.2014)"

10. Considering these undisputed facts with regardto the possession of the land with the petitioners and inview of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013 andin view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 (Pune Municipal Corporationand another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others),which has been followed by the Division Bench of thisCourt in W.A.No.918 of 2010 dated 03.04.2014 (P.Jayadevanv. The State Government, rep. by its Secretary, toGovernment, Housing and Urban Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others), we are of theview that the petitioners are entitled to succeed inW.P.No.8498 of 2000 and the entire acquisitionproceedings have to be declared as lapsed by virtue ofintroduction of Section 24(2) of the Land AcquisitionRehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30of 2013)." (ii) W.A.No.2254 of 2001, dated 29.10.2014"

9. Since the lands in question belonging to theappellant have not been taken possession within 5 years,Section 24(2) of the Act would have application andtherefore, Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated againstthe appellant herein shall be deemed to have been lapsed.That apart, in compliance of the judgment rendered by theConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India(cited supra), the Government has withdrawn the landacquisition proceedings in respect of some landowners inG.O.Ms.No.70, dated 01.03.2007 and the appellant hereinhas also submitted a representation for withdrawal ofland acquisition proceedings and applying the Principleof Parity, he is also entitled for similar benefit,subject to the condition that if he has received anycompensation, he shall be liable to remit the same to theGovernment.

10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed andthe order dated 30.07.1998 made in W.P.No.11697 of 1987is set-aside and the second respondent is directed to re-convey the lands in S.Nos.218/1B, 218/1B, 218/2B and219/1, totally admeasuring 10.21 acres situated inPotheri Village, Chengalpattu District, to the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subject to the condition that if the appellant hasreceived the compensation in terms of the AwardNo.7/1986, dated 17.09.1986, he shall remit back the samewithin a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order and if not, the second respondent isdi8. The third respondent further submits that theHon'ble High Court in 2012 (2) CTC 389 observed asfollows:-"The Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) Section48-B Application under Section 48-B will arise only whenrequisitioning body did not use land for purpose forwhich it was acquired. In the instant case, land had beenput to use for purpose for it was acquired - Thusinvocation of Section 48-B for re-conveyance of landwould not arise in this situation."The third respondent further submits that the Hon'ble High Court in2012(4) CTC 510 observed as follows:-"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48-B, Re-conveyance of land - petitioner seeking re-conveyance of land acquired for purpose of burial groundin the year 1949 - representation made by petitioner, wasrejected by Government - Matter has reached finalityabout sixty years ago and same cannot be reopened -Rights of parties has already crystallized along back andneedle of clock cannot be put in reverse - petitionercannot compel Government to re-convey land after sixdecades - Government has stated that land is needed forpublic purposes - Only after subjective satisfaction thatland is not required. Government can transfer toerstwhile owner - It is not mandatory for Government totransfer such lands - Petitioner attempts to get propertyby abusing process of Court after a lapse of sixty years- Since value of property is sky rocketing, petitioner istrying his luck - If claim made by petitioner isentertained, it will open a Pandora's Box - petitioner isnot having any right over property - He can at best becalled a stranger with a false claim - Due to raise inpopulation there is increasing number of deaths -Expansion of burial ground is certainly a necessity -writ petition dismissed." The third respondent further submits that with respect topetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986.After passing of the Award, the land was handed over tothe Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 09.11.1995 by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem. The Local Planning Authority,Salem has approved the road pattern. The Board for a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Rs.3834.00 lakhs on 25.03.2012 has approved the schemeproposal for the construction of 262 units under HIG, MIG& EWS houses. Hence, the third respondent entreats theCourt to dismiss the above writ petition directed to re-convey the above said lands to the appellant hereinwithin a period of twelve weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. No costs. If the officialrespondents are of the opinion that the lands in questionare still required for public purpose, they may do so byinvoking the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013."

10. The highly competent Additional Advocate GeneralMr.S.Gomathinayagam appearing for the first respondent submits thatthe first respondent had issued in G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 03.06.1981for acquiring the petitioners' lands and neighbouring lands forimplementing Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Thereafter, the LandAcquisition Officer had conducted an enquiry as per Section 5A ofthe Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was published in theGovernment Gazette. Subsequently, an award was passed andcompensation amount had been deposited into the Sub Court, Salemand the same was communicated to the landowners.

11. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further submits that thesurrounding land owners have filed Court cases. Therefore, theScheme could not be implemented within a reasonable period. Afterdisposal of all Court cases, now the Scheme will be carried out atthe earliest. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had sent an approval tothe Salem Local Planning Authority, for which, the Board had passeda resolution dated 08.02.2013. The respondents have acquired 42.69acres including the petitioners' lands for the purpose ofconstructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the generalpublic. After passing the award, the acquired lands were taken overby the Land Acquisition Officer and in turn, the said land washanded over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil NaduHousing Board had secured approval from the Town and CountryPlanning Department for lay out of construction of 262 houses andflats, for which, the Tamil Nadu Government has provided a sum ofRs.3,834/- lakhs towards the construction work and this is theprevailing current position.

12. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further added that thepetitioners' lands are absolutely necessary for implementing thehousing scheme. The petitioners made a representation to therespondents and requested them for re-conveyance of their landsunder Section 48-B of the Old Act. The highly competent Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate General further submits that if the requisitioning body,which did not use the land for the said purpose, only then, thepetitioners are entitled to get relief. In the instant case, theTamil Nadu Housing Board had secured approval from the Town andCountry Planning Department for implementing the NeighbourhoodHousing Scheme in the interest of the general public. The StateGovernment has also provided adequate funds to execute the saidpurpose. Hence, the highly competent Additional Advocate Generalentreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

13. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.V.Babu, appearingfor the second and third respondents submits that the petitioners'lands and along with others lands have been acquired for thepurpose of implementing the Neighbourhood Scheme. The said landswere acquired after strictly adhering to the Old Act and award wasalso passed. As such, there is no lapse on the side of therespondents for acquiring the said land for the general public.The highly competent counsel submits that the Land AcquisitionOfficer after acquiring the said land has handed over the same tothe Tamil Nadu Housing Board. If the above writ petition isallowed, the respondents and the general public will be put intohardship. Besides, the balance of convenience / social justicerests on the side of the respondents. Therefore, the above writpetition is not maintainable. Hence, the highly competent counselentreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

14. Per contra, the highly competent counselMr.C.Prakasam appearing for the petitioners submits that thepetitioners are still in possession and enjoying the said propertyby way of doing cultivation. The Land Acquisition Officer statedthat the property had been acquired and handed over the same on09.11.1995. He further submits that there is no indication orsignboard or fencing around the acquired land and there is nopersonal security arrangement at the site and it clearly provesthat the physical possession of the acquired land is not made, theoccupation is under the control of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek remedy underSection 24(2) of the New Act. Hence, the highly competent counselappearing for the petitioners made a deep request to discharge thepetitioners' lands from the said so-called acquisition proceedings.

15. From the above discussion, this Court is of the viewthat:-(i) The respondents had initiated Land AcquisitionProceedings under the Old Act for acquiring the petitioners' landfor forming Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, in the year 1981 and thesame was completed in the year 1986. Even after a lapse of 27years, the said Housing Scheme had not been implemented. As such,the purpose for which, the Scheme was initiated had not beenresolved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) There is no material evidence that the property hadbeen handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the LandAcquisition Officer. There is no iota of evidence, viz., signboard, fencing, security arrangement to show that the possession iswith the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the possession handedover by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard is treated only as a symbolic possession and not in actualityin terms of physical possession. Besides, the compensation amounthas not been paid to the landowners so far. Hence, the petitionersare also entitled to secure remedy under Section 24(2) of New Act30 of 2013.(iii) The Housing Schemes can be arranged anywhere, butthe agricultural land tilled over the centuries cannot be replaced.Therefore, the small farmers / writ petitioners and their familieswho are depending upon the said lands for their livelihood throughcultivation should not be disturbed.(iv) As per the counter statement filed by therespondents, it is seen that the Tamil Nadu Government hassanctioned a huge amount i.e., Rs.3,834 lakhs on 25.03.2012 for theconstruction of 262 units under HIG, MIG and EWS houses, but thisis only at Planning stage and not materialized. Under thecircumstances, considering the current prevailing position, if theacquired land is re-conveyed to the petitioners, the respondentswill not be prejudiced, since the acquired land is lying vacant.The general public will not be affected since alternative sitesespecially, un-cultivable lands are available for implementing thehousing scheme elsewhere. Therefore, the balance of convenience /social justice rests on the side of the petitioners since thecultivation is also of paramount importance to the general public.

16. On considering the facts and circumstances of thecase and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sideand this Court's view mentioned above (i) to (iv) and on perusingthe typed set of papers, the above writ petition is allowed.Consequently, the impugned order passed by the third respondent inhis Letter No.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013 is quashed.Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to re-convey thepetitioners land comprised in S.No.83/3, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk & District to the extent of 2.59 acres and the landcomprised in Survey No. S.No.83/2, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk and District to an extent of 0.27 acres to thepetitioners within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There isno order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant RegistrarTrue Copy Sub Assistant Registrarr n sTo1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, For St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai-35.

3.The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Unit, Salem - 636 008.2 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, Sr.NO. 1321 cc to Mr.R.V.Babu, Advocate, Sr.NO. 3101 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.244W.P.No.6118 of 2013 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 &M.P.No.1 of 2014jsv(co)pmk.23.1.2015

- - -O R D E RThe short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioners submit that when their father was alive,he was owning agricultural land situated in S.No.83/3,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District to the extentof 2.59 acres and 0.27 acres situated in S.No.83/2 of land,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. In the year1981, the Tamil Nadu Government acquired their land to the extentof 2.59 acres and 0.27 acres exclusively belonging to Gandhimathi,the first petitioner herein and the said land was acquired for thepurpose of implementing the Housing Scheme i.e., construction ofhouses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In this connection, theGovernment of Tamil Nadu issued 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.371,Housing and Urban Development Department dated 03.06.1981, afterthat under Section 6 Declaration was published in G.O.Ms.No.449,Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12.06.1984, butsubsequently after a lapse of two years, the award has been passedon 19.09.1986 in Award No.13 of 1986-1987.

2. The petitioners further submit that after acquisitionof their land in the year 1981, the Housing Board had not at allimplemented any scheme for construction of houses in their land.While their father was alive, he was enjoying the said land evenafter demise of their father, they are enjoying the said land andtill today they are in possession of the said land. Thepetitioners further submit that since they are agriculturists theyare not fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings as well asthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and after consultinglaw knowing persons, then only they came to understand that theyshould ask for re-conveyance as they should make writtenrepresentation under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act insteadof sending written representation for exclusion of their land fromLand Acquisition Proceedings.

3. The petitioners further submit that they came tounderstand that this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Courtwas pleased to pass orders with regard to re-conveyance of theland to the original owners on the ground that, if the Governmentor Housing Board have not implemented the housing scheme, i.e.,construction of the houses for more than 15 years to 20 years, thenthe landowners are entitled to get relief under the provisions ofLand Acquisition Act, specifically under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act. Accordingly, they made written representationrequesting the first respondent herein to re-convey the land underSection 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners furthersubmit that the first respondent also aware that this Court was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pleased to pass orders in the batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.422of 2011 etc., dated 14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance ofland."It is seen that theme batch of writ petitions arenot the first set of cases, which were decided by thisCourt, challenging the same acquisition proceedings. Itappears that the first batch of writ petitions were filedduring 1994 being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc., challengingthe Section 4(1) Notification, the writ petitions weredisposed of by a common judgment, dated 20.03.2001, byobserving that it may not be proper for the StateGovernment, to spend huge public money for theacquisition proceedings, to acquire the lands of thepetitioners therein with superstructure and keep the landidle, if the scheme could not be successfullyimplemented. Therefore, this Court permitted thepetitioners therein to approach the Government seekingexemption of re-conveyance. Another batch of cases werefiled during 1996 in W.P.Nos.9747 to 9749 of 1996,challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1)and Section 6 of the Act and the notifications were set-aside, with the further observation that the Governmentwill take into account ground realities before proceedingwith the acquisition. The other writ petitionchallenging the same acquisition proceedings inDr.N.Natarajan Vs. Government reported in TNMANU/TN/0526/2020 was allowed and the notification wasquashed. In Chinnayyagounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,2003(2) MLJ 481, the challenge was to the sameacquisition proceedings and the writ petition was allowedand the acquisition was quashed. While allowing the saidwrit petition, the Court took note of the fact that theywere approved layouts and even as per the policy of theGovernment, those lands are not to be acquired. It isseen that the Division Bench of this Court in more thanone decision has quashed the Land Acquisition Proceedingsin respect of the same scheme. In Arumuga Gounder Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006, theHon'ble Division Bench presided by Justice P.Sathasivam(as he then was observed that the entire KalapattiNeighbourhood Scheme has not been implemented till dateand several orders have been passed by this Court,quashing the acquisition proceedings. In M.Duraisamy Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007(3) MLJ 288, anotherDivision Bench of this Court, quashed a notification, inrespect of the same scheme and observed that it is not indispute that the entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Schemehas been dropped in view of the several orders passed bythis Court. In Tmt.Leelavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in MANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani andanother Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ1416, the learned Single Judges of this Court havequashed the notifications and took note of the fact thatthe entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has beendropped. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold thatthe learned Single Judge was perfectly justified infollowing the earlier Division Bench Judgment andallowing the writ petitions, wherever prayer was made forquashing the acquisition proceedings. As noticed above, in the earlier batch of appeals,this Court after taking note of the decisions in WritPetition Nos.12201 of 1994 etc., batch dated 20.03.2001,Dr.N.Natarajan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported inMANU/TN/0526/2020, Chinnayyagounder Vs. State of TamilNadu reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 481, Arumuga Gounder Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006,M.Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007(3)MLJ 288, Tmt.Leelavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reportedin MANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani and another Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1416,quashed the Notification, and held that the learnedSingle Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the writpetitions by following the earlier Division BenchJudgments. In view of the matter, we have no hesitation to holdthat the issues raised in these batch of appeals aresquarely covered by the earlier decisions rendered bythis Bench in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 2011, dated16.08.2011 and also taking note of the fact that thereare several Division Bench decisions of this Court,quashing the notifications in respect of the same schemeon identical grounds. Therefore, we see no reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned SingleJudge in allowing the writ petitions and also in anotherbatch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 201, dated16.08.2011 (2011 (5) CTC 503) were disposed in favour ofthe landowners and yet another judgment delivered by theDivision Bench of this Court by citing the Hon'bleSupreme Court Judgment made in the case of Hariram Vs.State of Haryana (2010 (2) CTC 336) with regard to re-conveyance to the original owners passed orders inW.A.Nos.1652 of 2010 etc., (2010 (5) CTC 261), wherebyobserved that if the land is not utilized for whichpurpose was acquired for very long time, then thelandowners are entitled to get an order from theGovernment for re-conveying their land." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The petitioners further submit that in the saidcircumstances, they made request before the first respondent topass order under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act for re-conveying their land situated in S.No.83/3, AyyamperumalpattiVillage, Salem Taluk and District to the extent of 2.59 acres and0.27 acres situated in S.No.83/2 of land to them. In thisconnection, they made written representation on 11.01.2013 and inthat written representation, they expressed their readiness to paywhatever the necessary cost spent by the first respondent foracquisition proceedings. After receipt of the said representation,the third respondent who does not have any power or jurisdiction toreject their request as per Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Actand only the Government alone, i.e., the first respondent hereinhaving power to pass orders under Section 48-B of Land AcquisitionAct. But, now the third respondent passed the impugned order in hisLetter No.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013, whereby rejecting theirrequest for re-conveyance of the said land. Hence, the petitionersentreat the Court to allow the above writ petition.

5. The first respondent has not filed any counterstatement in the above writ petition. However, the first respondentherein has filed a counter statement in the connected writ petitionin W.P.No.6119 of 2013. The highly competent counsel appearing forthe first respondent requests this Court that the counter statementfiled in the connected writ petition in W.P.No.6119 of 2013, may betaken into consideration in the above writ petition also since thefacts are one and the same. The counter statement filed by thefirst respondent in Writ Petition No.6119 of 2013, reads asfollows:-(i) The first respondent submits that the Tamil NaduHousing Board of Salem Housing Unit has proposed acquisition oflands for Housing Scheme in S.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extentof 42.69 acres including petitioner's land Salem ofAyyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. TheNotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Central Act 1 of 1894) (herein after referred to as "the Act") wasapproved in G.O.(Ms)No.455, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 23.06.1981 and was published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette No.28/A at Pages 3 and 4 Supplemental to Part IISection 2, dated 22.07.1981. The enquiry under Section 5-A of theLand Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 21.12.1981. The 3(b) enquiry wasconducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme,Salem on 07.06.1982. The first respondent further submits that theDraft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was approved inG.O.(Ms)No.538, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated07.07.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 in the Extraordinaryissue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28, dated 18.07.1984. TheAward enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Neighbourhood Scheme on 12.09.1986 for the above said land. Theaward was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NeighbourhoodScheme, Salem for an extent of 29.86 acres including thepetitioner's land. The first respondent further submits that as perthe award report bearing S.F.No.82/1 measuring an extent of 2.74acres stands registered in the Name of Srinivasan, Palanisamy,Prakasam, Namachivayam S/o.Duraisamy. The compensation amountawarded to them of Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 was depositedinto Sub Court, Salem by the Land Acquisition Officer. (ii) The first respondent further submits that the abovesaid lands was taken over on 19.11.1986 from the Special Tahsildar(LA). These lands could not be utilized by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard for Housing Scheme since the surrounding lands are underCourt case. After disposal of the case, the layout was preparedthrough approach from Varama Garden Private Road and got approvedby the Board vide Town Planning / Tamil Nadu Housing BoardNo.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the Salem LocalPlanning Authority and they approved the road pattern. Based onthat the scheme proposal for construction of various types ofhouses has been submitted to Board, which is under scrutiny forgetting approval. The first respondent further submits that theTamil Nadu Government acquired the lands in Salem District andTaluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Village bearing S.F.No.68/3 etc.,measuring an extent of 42.69 acres including the petitioners landin S.F.No.82/1 (2.74 acres) for the purpose of constructing housesby the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the general public. The LandAcquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, awarded compensation forthe petitioners land of Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 which wasdeposited in Sub Court, Salem. After passing of the award (AwardNo.7/86-87, dated 23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the LandAcquisition Officer and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on19.11.1986. Now, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board got approval from theDirector of Town and Country Planning for layout for constructionof 262 Houses and flats and also the Tamil Nadu Government hasprovided a sum of Rs.4,572.00 Lakhs for the construction works.(iii) The first respondent further submits that thepetitioner was fully aware about the Land Acquisition Proceedings.The petitioner now requested re-conveyance of the land for the saidland already in possession has been taken and the scheme also goingto be implemented. In these circumstances, re-conveyance of theland is impossible. The first respondent further submits that thepetitioner has given a representation on 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance of the land. The requisition also rejected by theManaging Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioner'sallegation is that the third respondent rejected the petitioner'srequisition is false. The second respondent who is the superior tothe third respondent rejected the petitioner's requisition. Thefirst respondent further submits that the Ho'ble High Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Annavasal Panchayat Union Rep. by its ChairmanAnnavasal and others (2012 (2) CTC 389) observed as follows:-"Application of Section 48-B will arise only if therequisitioning body did not use the land for the purposefor which it was acquired." In the instant case, land had been put to use for purpose for whichit was acquired. Thus invocation of Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act for re-conveyance of land would not arise in thissituation. The first respondent further submits that this Court inS.Balasubramaniam Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another (2012 (4) CTC 510) observedas follows:-"As the value of the property has gone up. Thepetitioner attempts to get the property by abusing theprocess of Court, after a lapse of 60 years. As the valueof the properties is sky rocketing, the petitioner istrying his luck by these proceedings and such a claim isnot sustainable in law. If the claims like petitioner areentertained by this Court, it will open a Pandora's boxthereby many claims by erstwhile owners, whose propertieswere acquired for public purposes, would be made and itwould not be in the interest of public. The mattersalready reached finality about 50 years ago and the samecannot be reopened. Rights of the parties already gotcrystallized long back and the needle of the clock cannotbe put in reverse. The claim itself is against the publicinterest, which has to be rejected in limini." "When such is the position, the petitioner cannotapproach the respondents for re-conveyance of the landwhich was acquired over decades in age. The attempt ofthe petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.For having indulged in abuse of process of law and soughtfor re-conveyance of the property, which was acquired asearly as 1949, the petitioner is liable to be slappedwith very heavy cost. However, due to judicial restraint,this Court is not awarding any cost. Accordingly, thewrit petition is dismissed with the above observations."The first respondent further submits that with respect to thepetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986. After passingof the award, the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard on 19.11.1986. The Director of Town and Country Planning alsoapproved proposal for layout for construction of 262 houses andflats. Hence, the first respondent entreats the Court to dismissthe writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit andopposed the writ petition. The third respondent further submitsthat the Tamil Nadu Housing Board of Salem Housing Unit hasproposed acquisition of lands for housing scheme in S.F.No.83/1etc., measuring an extent of 44.34 acres including petitioner'sland in Salem of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk andDistrict. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing & UrbanDevelopment Department dated 03.06.1981 and was published in TamilNadu Government Gazette No.23/A at pages 8 to 18 supplemental toPart II Section 2 dated 17.06.1981 and the errata published insupplemental Part II Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government GazetteNo.31A, dated 12.08.1981 at page No.

5. The enquiry under Section 5Aof the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar(LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 12.10.1981. The 3(b) enquirywas conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem on18.03.1982. The third respondent further submits that DraftDeclaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act wasapproved in G.O.Ms.No.449, Housing & Urban Development Departmentdated 12.06.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 in the extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.248, dated14.06.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme on 11.09.1986 for the abovesaid land. The award was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem for an extent of 13.99 acres includingthe petitioners' land. As per the award report bearing theS.F.No.83/2 measuring an extent of 0.27 acres stands registeredjointly in the name of Ramalingam, Thirisangu sons of PerumalGounder, Muthayammal, W/o. (Late) Komara Gounder, Varadappan,Natesan, Namperumal, Kandasamy, Subramaniam, Rajalakshmi. TheS.F.No.83/3 measuring an extent of 3.59 acres stands registeredjointly in the name of Thirisangu S/o.Perumal Gounder, ManokaranS/o.Dharmalingam. They are given consent to get the compensationwith objection for higher compensation. Hence, the compensationamount awarded to them of Rs.93,085.30 for S.F.No.83/2 andRs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/3 was deposited into Sub Court, Salemby the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. The third respondent further submits that the land inS.F.No.83/3 was taken over possession on 09.11.1995 from theSpecial Tahsildar (LA). These lands could not be utilizedimmediately by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Housing Schemesince the surroundings lands are under Court litigation. Afterdisposal of the case, the layout was prepared through approach fromVarama Garden private road and got approved by the Board videTP/TNHB No.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the SalemLocal Planning Authority and they have approved the road pattern.Based on that, the scheme proposal for construction of various https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ types of houses has been submitted to the Board, which was approvedby the Board meeting vide B.R.No.4.01, dated 25.03.2013. The thirdrespondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Government acquiredthe lands in Salem District and Taluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Villagebearing S.F.No.83/1 etc., measuring to an extent of 44.34 acresincluding the petitioners land in S.F.No.83/2 and 83/3 forconstructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the public.The Land Acquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, awardedcompensation for the petitioner's land of Rs.93,085.30 &Rs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/2 and 83/3 which was deposited in SubCourt, Salem. After passing of the Award (Award No.13/86-87, dated23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the Land AcquisitionOfficer and handed over (S.F.No.83/3) to Tamil Nadu Housing Boardon 09.11.1995. Now, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted thelayout for approval from the Salem Local Planning Authority forconstruction of various types of houses and flats and they haveapproved the road pattern. The Scheme proposal for theconstruction of 262 Units have been approved by the Board forRs.3834.00 Lakhs for the construction of works. The thirdrespondent further submits that the petitioner was fully awareabout the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitioner nowrequested re-conveyance of the land for the said land already inpossession has been taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board andscheme is also going to be implemented benefiting the generalpublic at large. In these circumstances, re-conveyance of the landis not impossible. The third respondent further submits that thepetitioners have given a representation on 11.01.2013 requestingre-conveyance of the land. The requisition also rejected by therequisitioning body of Tamil Nadu Housing Board since the land isessentially required for a comprehensive Housing Scheme benefitingthe public.

8. The third respondent further submits that the Hon'bleHigh Court in 2012 (2) CTC 389 observed as follows:-"The Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) Section48-B Application under Section 48-B will arise only whenrequisitioning body did not use land for purpose forwhich it was acquired. In the instant case, land had beenput to use for purpose for it was acquired - Thusinvocation of Section 48-B for re-conveyance of landwould not arise in this situation."The third respondent further submits that the Hon'ble High Court in2012(4) CTC 510 observed as follows:-"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48-B, Re-conveyance of land - petitioner seeking re-conveyance of land acquired for purpose of burial groundin the year 1949 - representation made by petitioner, wasrejected by Government - Matter has reached finalityabout sixty years ago and same cannot be reopened - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rights of parties has already crystallized along back andneedle of clock cannot be put in reverse - petitionercannot compel Government to re-convey land after sixdecades - Government has stated that land is needed forpublic purposes - Only after subjective satisfaction thatland is not required. Government can transfer toerstwhile owner - It is not mandatory for Government totransfer such lands - Petitioner attempts to get propertyby abusing process of Court after a lapse of sixty years- Since value of property is sky rocketing, petitioner istrying his luck - If claim made by petitioner isentertained, it will open a Pandora's Box - petitioner isnot having any right over property - He can at best becalled a stranger with a false claim - Due to rise inpopulation there is increasing number of deaths -Expansion of burial ground is certainly a necessity -writ petition dismissed." The third respondent further submits that with respect topetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986. After passingof the Award, the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard on 09.11.1995 by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem. TheLocal Planning Authority, Salem has approved the road pattern. TheBoard for a sum of Rs.3834.00 lakhs on 25.03.2012 has approved thescheme proposal for the construction of 262 units under HIG, MIG &EWS houses. Hence, the third respondent entreats the Court todismiss the above writ petition.

9. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearingfor the petitioners submits that the first respondent had issued 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment dated 03.06.1981, for acquiring the petitioners' landunder the Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was published on12.06.1984. Subsequently, after a lapse of two years, the award hasbeen passed in Award No.13 of 1986-1987. As such, the award hasnot been passed within two years as per law. Therefore, theacquisition proceeding has become lapsed. He further submits thatthe petitioners are agriculturists and they are depending upon thecultivation of their land for their livelihood. The petitionerswere not aware of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitionersmade a representation on 11.01.2013 under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act for re-conveyance of the land to them since theacquired lands are kept vacant. The respondents had notimplemented the Neighbourhood Scheme for the past 25 years. Assuch, the original purpose was defeated. Further, the petitionershave not received any compensation for their lands. Further, therespondents have taken a symbolic possession of the land, but notin actuality in terms of physical possession. Therefore, thepetitioners are entitled to seek relief under Section 24(2) of theNew Act 30 of 2013. The highly competent counsel has cited a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment in Writ Appeal No.422 of 2011, etc., in which, thelandowners have obtained remedy for re-conveyance and as such, thepetitioners are entitled to receive similar remedy since theinstant case is also similar in nature. The highly competentcounsel has cited the following judgments in support of hiscontentions:-(i) W.P.Nos.8497 and 8498 of 2000, (dated 12.08.2014)"

10. Considering these undisputed facts with regardto the possession of the land with the petitioners and inview of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013 andin view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 (Pune Municipal Corporationand another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others),which has been followed by the Division Bench of thisCourt in W.A.No.918 of 2010 dated 03.04.2014 (P.Jayadevanv. The State Government, rep. by its Secretary, toGovernment, Housing and Urban Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others), we are of theview that the petitioners are entitled to succeed inW.P.No.8498 of 2000 and the entire acquisitionproceedings have to be declared as lapsed by virtue ofintroduction of Section 24(2) of the Land AcquisitionRehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30of 2013)." (ii) W.A.No.2254 of 2001, dated 29.10.2014"

9. Since the lands in question belonging to theappellant have not been taken possession within 5 years,Section 24(2) of the Act would have application andtherefore, Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated againstthe appellant herein shall be deemed to have been lapsed.That apart, in compliance of the judgment rendered by theConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India(cited supra), the Government has withdrawn the landacquisition proceedings in respect of some landowners inG.O.Ms.No.70, dated 01.03.2007 and the appellant hereinhas also submitted a representation for withdrawal ofland acquisition proceedings and applying the Principleof Parity, he is also entitled for similar benefit,subject to the condition that if he has received anycompensation, he shall be liable to remit the same to theGovernment.

10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed andthe order dated 30.07.1998 made in W.P.No.11697 of 1987is set-aside and the second respondent is directed to re-convey the lands in S.Nos.218/1B, 218/1B, 218/2B and219/1, totally admeasuring 10.21 acres situated inPotheri Village, Chengalpattu District, to the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subject to the condition that if the appellant hasreceived the compensation in terms of the AwardNo.7/1986, dated 17.09.1986, he shall remit back the samewithin a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order and if not, the second respondent isdi8. The third respondent further submits that theHon'ble High Court in 2012 (2) CTC 389 observed asfollows:-"The Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) Section48-B Application under Section 48-B will arise only whenrequisitioning body did not use land for purpose forwhich it was acquired. In the instant case, land had beenput to use for purpose for it was acquired - Thusinvocation of Section 48-B for re-conveyance of landwould not arise in this situation."The third respondent further submits that the Hon'ble High Court in2012(4) CTC 510 observed as follows:-"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48-B, Re-conveyance of land - petitioner seeking re-conveyance of land acquired for purpose of burial groundin the year 1949 - representation made by petitioner, wasrejected by Government - Matter has reached finalityabout sixty years ago and same cannot be reopened -Rights of parties has already crystallized along back andneedle of clock cannot be put in reverse - petitionercannot compel Government to re-convey land after sixdecades - Government has stated that land is needed forpublic purposes - Only after subjective satisfaction thatland is not required. Government can transfer toerstwhile owner - It is not mandatory for Government totransfer such lands - Petitioner attempts to get propertyby abusing process of Court after a lapse of sixty years- Since value of property is sky rocketing, petitioner istrying his luck - If claim made by petitioner isentertained, it will open a Pandora's Box - petitioner isnot having any right over property - He can at best becalled a stranger with a false claim - Due to raise inpopulation there is increasing number of deaths -Expansion of burial ground is certainly a necessity -writ petition dismissed." The third respondent further submits that with respect topetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986.After passing of the Award, the land was handed over tothe Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 09.11.1995 by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem. The Local Planning Authority,Salem has approved the road pattern. The Board for a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Rs.3834.00 lakhs on 25.03.2012 has approved the schemeproposal for the construction of 262 units under HIG, MIG& EWS houses. Hence, the third respondent entreats theCourt to dismiss the above writ petition directed to re-convey the above said lands to the appellant hereinwithin a period of twelve weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. No costs. If the officialrespondents are of the opinion that the lands in questionare still required for public purpose, they may do so byinvoking the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013."

10. The highly competent Additional Advocate GeneralMr.S.Gomathinayagam appearing for the first respondent submits thatthe first respondent had issued in G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 03.06.1981for acquiring the petitioners' lands and neighbouring lands forimplementing Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Thereafter, the LandAcquisition Officer had conducted an enquiry as per Section 5A ofthe Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was published in theGovernment Gazette. Subsequently, an award was passed andcompensation amount had been deposited into the Sub Court, Salemand the same was communicated to the landowners.

11. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further submits that thesurrounding land owners have filed Court cases. Therefore, theScheme could not be implemented within a reasonable period. Afterdisposal of all Court cases, now the Scheme will be carried out atthe earliest. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had sent an approval tothe Salem Local Planning Authority, for which, the Board had passeda resolution dated 08.02.2013. The respondents have acquired 42.69acres including the petitioners' lands for the purpose ofconstructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the generalpublic. After passing the award, the acquired lands were taken overby the Land Acquisition Officer and in turn, the said land washanded over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil NaduHousing Board had secured approval from the Town and CountryPlanning Department for lay out of construction of 262 houses andflats, for which, the Tamil Nadu Government has provided a sum ofRs.3,834/- lakhs towards the construction work and this is theprevailing current position.

12. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further added that thepetitioners' lands are absolutely necessary for implementing thehousing scheme. The petitioners made a representation to therespondents and requested them for re-conveyance of their landsunder Section 48-B of the Old Act. The highly competent Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate General further submits that if the requisitioning body,which did not use the land for the said purpose, only then, thepetitioners are entitled to get relief. In the instant case, theTamil Nadu Housing Board had secured approval from the Town andCountry Planning Department for implementing the NeighbourhoodHousing Scheme in the interest of the general public. The StateGovernment has also provided adequate funds to execute the saidpurpose. Hence, the highly competent Additional Advocate Generalentreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

13. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.V.Babu, appearingfor the second and third respondents submits that the petitioners'lands and along with others lands have been acquired for thepurpose of implementing the Neighbourhood Scheme. The said landswere acquired after strictly adhering to the Old Act and award wasalso passed. As such, there is no lapse on the side of therespondents for acquiring the said land for the general public.The highly competent counsel submits that the Land AcquisitionOfficer after acquiring the said land has handed over the same tothe Tamil Nadu Housing Board. If the above writ petition isallowed, the respondents and the general public will be put intohardship. Besides, the balance of convenience / social justicerests on the side of the respondents. Therefore, the above writpetition is not maintainable. Hence, the highly competent counselentreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

14. Per contra, the highly competent counselMr.C.Prakasam appearing for the petitioners submits that thepetitioners are still in possession and enjoying the said propertyby way of doing cultivation. The Land Acquisition Officer statedthat the property had been acquired and handed over the same on09.11.1995. He further submits that there is no indication orsignboard or fencing around the acquired land and there is nopersonal security arrangement at the site and it clearly provesthat the physical possession of the acquired land is not made, theoccupation is under the control of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek remedy underSection 24(2) of the New Act. Hence, the highly competent counselappearing for the petitioners made a deep request to discharge thepetitioners' lands from the said so-called acquisition proceedings.

15. From the above discussion, this Court is of the viewthat:-(i) The respondents had initiated Land AcquisitionProceedings under the Old Act for acquiring the petitioners' landfor forming Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, in the year 1981 and thesame was completed in the year 1986. Even after a lapse of 27years, the said Housing Scheme had not been implemented. As such,the purpose for which, the Scheme was initiated had not beenresolved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) There is no material evidence that the property hadbeen handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the LandAcquisition Officer. There is no iota of evidence, viz., signboard, fencing, security arrangement to show that the possession iswith the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the possession handedover by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard is treated only as a symbolic possession and not in actualityin terms of physical possession. Besides, the compensation amounthas not been paid to the landowners so far. Hence, the petitionersare also entitled to secure remedy under Section 24(2) of New Act30 of 2013.(iii) The Housing Schemes can be arranged anywhere, butthe agricultural land tilled over the centuries cannot be replaced.Therefore, the small farmers / writ petitioners and their familieswho are depending upon the said lands for their livelihood throughcultivation should not be disturbed.(iv) As per the counter statement filed by therespondents, it is seen that the Tamil Nadu Government hassanctioned a huge amount i.e., Rs.3,834 lakhs on 25.03.2012 for theconstruction of 262 units under HIG, MIG and EWS houses, but thisis only at Planning stage and not materialized. Under thecircumstances, considering the current prevailing position, if theacquired land is re-conveyed to the petitioners, the respondentswill not be prejudiced, since the acquired land is lying vacant.The general public will not be affected since alternative sitesespecially, un-cultivable lands are available for implementing thehousing scheme elsewhere. Therefore, the balance of convenience /social justice rests on the side of the petitioners since thecultivation is also of paramount importance to the general public.

16. On considering the facts and circumstances of thecase and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sideand this Court's view mentioned above (i) to (iv) and on perusingthe typed set of papers, the above writ petition is allowed.Consequently, the impugned order passed by the third respondent inhis Letter No.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013 is quashed.Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to re-convey thepetitioners land comprised in S.No.83/3, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk & District to the extent of 2.59 acres and the landcomprised in Survey No. S.No.83/2, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk and District to an extent of 0.27 acres to thepetitioners within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There isno order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant RegistrarTrue Copy Sub Assistant Registrarr n sTo1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, For St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai-35.

3.The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Unit, Salem - 636 008.2 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, Sr.NO. 1321 cc to Mr.R.V.Babu, Advocate, Sr.NO. 3101 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.244W.P.No.6118 of 2013 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 &M.P.No.1 of 2014jsv(co)pmk.23.1.2015