Madrascav High Court · 2015

O R D E RThe short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioners submit that they are owning a land toan extent of 1.11.0 hectares situated in S.No.82/1,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. In the year1981, the Tamil Nadu Government acquired their land 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 inG.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and Urban Development Department dated23.06.1981, after that under Section 6 Declaration was publishedin G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated07.07.1984, but subsequently after lapse of two years, the awardhas been passed on 19.09.1986 in Award No.7 of 1986-1987. 2. The petitioners further submit that afteracquisition of their land in the year 1981, the Housing Board hadnot at all implemented any scheme for construction of houses intheir land. The petitioners further submit that till date theyare in possession of the said land and when they made writtenrepresentation on 23.02.2009, requesting the Government toexclude their land from acquisition proceedings, the SpecialTahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem-8, wasrejected without giving any valid reasons and in this connection,he issued a communication in Letter in Na.Ka.No.89 of 2008.A,dated 16.12.2009. The petitioners further submit that since theyare agriculturists they were not fully aware of the landacquisition proceedings as well as the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act and after consulting law knowing persons, thenonly they came to understand that they should ask for re-conveyance as they should make written representation underSection 48-B of Land Acquisition Act instead of sending writtenrepresentation for exclusion of their land from Land AcquisitionProceedings.3. The petitioners further submit that they came tounderstand that this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble SupremeCourt was pleased to pass orders with regard to re-conveyance ofthe land to the original owners on the ground that, if theGovernment or Housing Board has not implemented the housingscheme, i.e., construction of the houses for more than 15 yearsto 20 years, then the landowners can be entitled to get reliefunder the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, specifically underSection 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, they madewritten representations requesting the first respondent herein tore-convey the land under Section 48-B of the Land AcquisitionAct. The petitioners further submit that the first respondent isalso aware that this Court was pleased to pass orders in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.422 of 2011 etc., dated14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance of land, "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 werefiled during 1994 being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc.,challenging the Section 4(1) Notification, the writpetitions were disposed of by a common judgment, dated20.03.2001, by observing that it may not be proper forthe State Government, to spend huge public money forthe acquisition proceedings, to acquire the lands ofthe petitioners therein with superstructure and keepthe land idle, 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 wereset-aside, with the further observation that theGovernment will take into account ground realitiesbefore proceeding with the acquisition. The other writpetition challenging the same acquisition proceedingsin Dr.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 wasallowed and the acquisition was quashed. While allowingthe said writ petition, the Court took note of the factthat they were approved layouts and even as per thepolicy of the Government, those lands are not to beacquired. It is seen that the Division Bench of thisCourt in more than one decision has quashed the LandAcquisition Proceedings in respect of the same scheme.In Arumuga Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported inMANU/TN/7522/2006, the Hon'ble Division Bench presidedby Justice P.Sathasivam (as he then was observed thatthe entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has not beenimplemented till date and several orders have beenpassed by this Court, quashing the acquisitionproceedings. In M.Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadureported in 2007(3) MLJ 288, another Division Bench ofthis Court, quashed a notification, in respect of thesame scheme and observed that it is not in dispute thatthe entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has beendropped in view of the several orders passed by thisCourt. 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)MLJ 1416, the learned Single Judges of this Court havequashed the notifications and took note of the factthat the 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 madefor quashing 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 dated20.03.2001, Dr.N.Natarajan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadureported in MANU/TN/0526/2020, Chinnayyagounder Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 481,Arumuga Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported inMANU/TN/7522/2006, M.Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadureported in 2007(3) MLJ 288, Tmt.Leelavathi Vs. Stateof Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/0586/2008 and inDhandapani and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reportedin 2008 (5) MLJ 1416, quashed the Notification, andheld that the learned Single Judge was perfectlyjustified in allowing the writ petitions by followingthe earlier Division Bench Judgments. In view of the matter, we have no hesitation tohold that the issues raised in these batch of appealsare squarely covered by the earlier decisions renderedby this 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 samescheme on identical grounds. Therefore, we see noreason to interfere with the order passed by thelearned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions andalso in another batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.252 to255 of 201, dated 16.08.2011 (2011 (5) CTC 503) weredisposed in favour of the landowners and yet anotherjudgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Courtby citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment made inthe case of Hariram Vs. State of Haryana (2010 (2) CTC336) with regard to re-conveyance to the originalowners passed orders in W.A.Nos.1652 of 2010 etc.,(2010 (5) CTC 261), whereby observed that if it is theland not utilized for which purpose was acquired for avery long time, then the landowners are entitled to getan order from the Government for re-conveying theirland." 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.82/1, AyyamperumalpattiVillage, Salem Taluk and District to the extent of 1.11.0hectares of land to them. In this connection, they made writtenrepresentation on 11.01.2013 and in that written representation,they expressed their readiness to pay whatever the necessary costspent by the first respondent for acquisition proceedings. Afterreceipt of the said representation, the third respondent who doesnot have any power or jurisdiction to reject their request as perSection 48-B of Land Acquisition Act and only the Governmentalone, i.e., the first respondent herein is having power to passorders under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act. But, now thethird respondent passed the impugned order in his LetterNo.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013, whereby rejecting theirrequest for re-conveyance of the said land. Hence, thepetitioners entreat the Court to allow the above writ petition.5. The counter statement filed by the first respondentreads as follows:-(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 at 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")was approved 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 PartII Section 2, dated 22.07.1981. The enquiry under Section 5-A ofthe Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar(LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 21.12.1981. The 3(b) enquirywas conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), NeighbourhoodScheme, Salem on 07.06.1982. The first respondent further submitsthat the Draft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act wasapproved in G.O.(Ms)No.538, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 07.07.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 inthe Extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28,dated 18.07.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme on 12.09.1986 for the abovesaid land. The award was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem for an extent of 29.86 acresincluding the petitioner's land. The first respondent furthersubmits that as per the award report bearing S.F.No.82/1measuring an extent of 2.74 acres stands registered in the Nameof Srinivasan, Palanisamy, Prakasam, Namachivayam S/o.Duraisamy.The compensation amount awarded to them of Rs.1,93,810.05 for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.F.No.82/1 was deposited into Sub Court, Salem by the LandAcquisition Officer. (ii) The first respondent further submits that theabove said lands were taken over on 19.11.1986 from the SpecialTahsildar (LA). These lands could not be utilized by the TamilNadu Housing Board for Housing Scheme since the surrounding landsare under Court case. After disposal of the case, the layout wasprepared through approach from Varama Garden Private Road and gotapproved by the Board vide Town Planning / Tamil Nadu HousingBoard No.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the SalemLocal Planning Authority and they approved the road pattern.Based on that the scheme proposal for construction of varioustypes of houses has been submitted to Board, which is underscrutiny for getting approval. The first respondent furthersubmits that the Tamil Nadu Government acquired the lands inSalem District and Taluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Village bearingS.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extent of 42.69 acres includingthe petitioners land in S.F.No.82/1 (2.74 acres) for the purposeof constructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for thegeneral public. The Land Acquisition Officer, NeighbourhoodScheme, awarded compensation for the petitioners land ofRs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 which was deposited in Sub Court,Salem. After passing of the award (Award No.7/86-87, dated23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the Land AcquisitionOfficer and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on19.11.1986. Now, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board got approval fromthe Director of Town and Country Planning for the layout forconstruction of 262 Houses and flats and also the Tamil NaduGovernment has provided a sum of Rs.4,572.00 Lakhs for theconstruction works.(iii) The first respondent further submits that thepetitioner was fully aware about the Land AcquisitionProceedings. The petitioner now requested re-conveyance of theland for the said land already is possession has been taken andthe scheme also going to be implemented. In these circumstances,re-conveyance of the land is impossible. The first respondentfurther submits that the petitioners have given a representationon 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance of the land. Therequisition also rejected by the Managing Director, Tamil NaduHousing Board. The petitioner's allegation is that the thirdrespondent rejected the petitioner's requisition is false. Thesecond respondent who is the superior to the third respondentrejected the petitioner's requisition. The first respondentfurther submits that the Ho'ble High Court in Mohammed IbrahimVs. Annavasal Panchayat Union Rep. by its Chairman Annavasal andothers (2012 (2) CTC 389) observed as follows:-"Application of Section 48-B will arise only ifthe requisitioning body did not use the land for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purpose for which it was acquired." In the instant case, land had been put to use for purpose forwhich it was acquired. Thus invocation of Section 48-B of theLand Acquisition Act for re-conveyance of land would not arise inthis situation. The first respondent further submits that thisCourt in S.Balasubramaniam Vs. Secretary to Government, RevenueDepartment, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another (2012 (4) CTC510) observed as 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 thevalue of the properties is sky rocketing, thepetitioner is trying his luck by these proceedings andsuch a claim is not sustainable in law. If the claimslike petitioner are entertained by this Court, it willopen a Pandora's box thereby many claims by erstwhileowners, whose properties were acquired for publicpurposes, would be made and it would not be in theinterest of public. These matters already reachedfinality about 50 years ago and the same cannot bereopened. Rights of the parties already gotcrystallized long back and the needle of the clockcannot be put in reverse. The claim itself is againstthe public interest, which has to be rejected inlimini." "When such is the position, the petitioner cannotapproach the respondents for re-conveyance of the landwhich was acquired over decades age. The attempt of thepetitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.For having indulged in abuse of process of law andsought for re-conveyance of the property, which wasacquired as early as 1949, the petitioner is liable tobe slapped with very heavy cost. However, due tojudicial restraint, this Court is not awarding anycost. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed withthe above observations."The first respondent further submits that with respect to thepetitioner's land, award was passed in the year 1986. Afterpassing of the award, the land handed over to the Tamil NaduHousing Board on 19.11.1986. The Director of Town and CountryPlanning also approved proposal for layout for construction of262 houses and flats. Hence, the first respondent entreats theCourt to dismiss the writ petition.6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavitand opposed the writ petition. The third respondent furthersubmits that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board of Salem Housing Unithas proposed acquisition of lands for housing scheme inS.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extent of 42.69 acres including https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners' land at Salem of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, SalemTaluk and District. The Notification under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.455, Housing &Urban Development Department dated 23.06.1981 and was publishedin Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28/A at pages 3 and 4Supplemental to Part. II Section2, dated 22.07.1981. The enquiryunder Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by theSpecial Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on21.12.1981. The 3(b) enquiry was conducted by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem on 07.06.1982. The third respondentfurther submits that Draft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 ofthe Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing &Urban Development Department dated 07.07.1984 and was publishedat pages 1 to 5 in the extra ordinary issue of Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette No.28, dated 18.07.1984. The Award enquiry wasconducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme on12.09.1986 for the above said land. The award was passed by theSpecial Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem for an extentof 29.86 acres including the petitioners' land. As per the awardreport bearing the S.F.No.82/1 measuring an extent of 2.74 acresstands registered jointly in the name of Srinivasan, Palanisamy,Prakasam, Namachivayam S/.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. 7. The third respondent further submits that the saidland was taken over on 19.11.1986 from the Special Tahsildar(LA). These lands could not be utilized immediately by theTamil Nadu Housing Board for Housing Scheme since thesurroundings lands are under Court case. After disposal of thecase, the layout was prepared through approach from Varama Gardenprivate road and got approved by the Board vide TP/TNHBNo.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent to the Salem LocalPlanning Authority and they have approved the road pattern. Basedon that, the scheme proposal for construction of various types ofhouses has been submitted to Board, which was under scrutiny ofgetting approval. The third respondent further submits that theTamil Nadu Government acquired the lands in Salem District andTaluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Village bearing S.F.No.68/3 etc.,measuring to an extent of 42.69 acres including the petitionersland in S.F.No.82/1 (2.74 acres) for the purpose of constructinghouses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the public. The LandAcquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, awarded compensationfor the petitioners' land of Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1which was deposited in Sub Court, Salem. After passing of theAward (Award No.7/86-87, dated 23.09.1986), the land was takenover by the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to TamilNadu Housing Board on 19.11.1986. Now, the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard got the approval from the Director of Town and CountryPlanning for the lay out for constructing 262 Houses and flats https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and also the Tamil Nadu Government has provided a sum of Rs.4,572lakhs for the construction works. The third respondent furthersubmits that the petitioners were fully aware about the LandAcquisition Proceedings. The petitioners now requested re-conveyance of the land for the said land already in possessionhas been taken and the scheme also going to be implemented. Inthese circumstances, re-conveyance of the land is not impossible.The third respondent further submits that the petitioner hasgiven a representation on 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance ofthe land. The requisition also rejected by the requisitioningbody of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioners allegation isthat the third respondent rejected the petitioners requisition isfalse. The second respondent who is the superior to the thirdrespondent has rejected the petitioners requisition. 8. The third respondent further submits that theHon'ble High Court in Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Annavasal PanchayatUnion Rep. by its Chairman Annavasal and others reported in 2012(2) CTC 389 observed as follows:-"Application of Section 48-B will arise only ifthe requisitioning body did not use the land for thepurpose for which it was acquired.In the instant case, land had been put to use for purpose forwhich it was acquired. Thus invocation of Section 48-B of theLand Acquisition Act for re- conveyance of land would not arisein this situation. The third respondent further submits that theHon'ble High Court in S.Balasubramaniam Vs. Secretary toGovernment, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 andanother reported in 2012(4) CTC 510 observed as 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 thevalue of the properties is sky rocketing, thepetitioner is trying his luck by these proceedings andsuch a claim is not sustainable in law. If the claimslike petitioner's are entertained by this Court, itwill open a Pandora's box thereby many claims byerstwhile owners, whose properties were acquired forpublic purposes, would be made and it would not be inthe interest of public. The matters already reachedfinality about 50 years ago and the same cannot bereopened. Rights of the parties already gotcrystallized long back and the needle of the clockcannot be put in reverse. The claim itself is againstthe public interest, which has to be rejected inlimini." "When such is the position, the petitioner cannotapproach the respondents for re-conveyance of the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which was acquired over decades in age. The attempt ofthe petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process oflaw. For having indulged in abuse of process of law andsought for re-conveyance of the property, which wasacquired as early as 1949, the petitioner is liable tobe slapped with very heavy cost. However, due tojudicial restraint, this Court is not awarding anycost. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed withthe above observations." The third respondent further submits that with respect topetitioners' land, award was passed in the year 1986. Afterpassing of the Award, the land was handed over to the Tamil NaduHousing Board on 19.11.1986. The Director of Town and CountryPlanning also approved proposal for layout for construction of262 houses and flats. Hence, the third respondent entreats theCourt to dismiss the above writ petition.9. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearingfor the petitioners submits that the first respondent had issued4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment dated 23.06.1981, for acquiring the petitioners' landunder the Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was publishedon 07.07.1984. Subsequently, after a lapse of two years, theaward has been passed in Award No.7 of 1986-1987. As such,the award has not been passed within two years as per law.Therefore, the acquisition proceeding has become lapsed. Hefurther submits that the petitioners are agriculturists and andtheir families are depending upon the cultivation of their landfor their livelihood. The petitioners were not aware of the LandAcquisition Proceedings. The petitioners made a representation on11.01.2013 under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act for re-conveyance of the land to them since the acquired lands are keptvacant. The respondents had not implemented the NeighbourhoodScheme for the past 25 years. As such, the original purpose wasdefeated. Further, the petitioners have not received anycompensation for their lands. Further, the respondents have takena symbolic possession of the land, but not in actuality in termsof physical possession. Therefore, the petitioners are entitledto seek relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013.The highly competent counsel has cited a judgment in Writ AppealNo.422 of 2011, etc., in which, the landowners have obtainedremedy for re-conveyance and as such, the petitioners areentitled to receive similar remedy since the instant case is alsosimilar in nature. The highly competent counsel has cited thefollowing judgments in support of his contentions:-(i) W.P.Nos.8497 and 8498 of 2000, (dated 12.08.2014)"10. Considering these undisputed facts withregard to the possession of the land with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners and in view of Section 24(2) of the CentralAct 30 of 2013 and in view of the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183(Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and others), which has been followedby the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.918 of2010 dated 03.04.2014 (P.Jayadevan v. The StateGovernment, rep. by its Secretary, to Government,Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 and others), we are of the view thatthe petitioners are entitled to succeed in W.P.No.8498of 2000 and the entire acquisition proceedings have tobe declared as lapsed by virtue of introduction ofSection 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 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 5years, Section 24(2) of the Act would have applicationand therefore, Land Acquisition Proceedings initiatedagainst the appellant herein shall be deemed to havebeen lapsed. That apart, in compliance of the judgmentrendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India (cited supra), the Governmenthas withdrawn the land acquisition proceedings inrespect of some landowners in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated01.03.2007 and the appellant herein has also submitteda representation for withdrawal of land acquisitionproceedings and applying the Principle of Parity, heis also entitled for similar benefit, subject to thecondition that if he has received any compensation, heshall be liable to remit the same to the Government.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 tore-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 theappellant subject to the condition that if theappellant has received the compensation in terms of theAward No.7/1986, dated 17.09.1986, he shall remit backthe same within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order and if not, the secondrespondent is directed to re-convey the above saidlands to the appellant herein within a period of twelveweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.No costs. If the official respondents are of theopinion that the lands in question are still requiredfor public purpose, they may do so by invoking the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013." 10. The highly competent Additional Advocate GeneralMr.S.Gomathinayagam appearing for the first respondent submitsthat the first respondent had issued in G.O.Ms.No.455, dated23.06.1981 for acquiring the petitioners' lands and neighbouringlands for implementing Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Thereafter,the Land Acquisition Officer had conducted an enquiry as perSection 5A of the Old Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration waspublished in the Government Gazette. Subsequently, an award waspassed and compensation amount had been deposited into the SubCourt, Salem and 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 outat the earliest. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had sent anapproval to the Salem Local Planning Authority, for which, theBoard had passed a resolution dated 08.02.2013. The respondentshave acquired 42.69 acres including the petitioners' lands forthe purpose of constructing houses by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard for the general public. After passing the award, theacquired lands were taken over by the Land Acquisition Officerand in turn, the said land was handed over to the Tamil NaduHousing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had securedapproval from the Town and Country Planning Department for layout of construction of 262 houses and flats, for which, the TamilNadu Government has provided a sum of Rs.4,572/- lakhs towardsthe construction work and this is the prevailing currentposition.12. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further added that thepetitioners' lands are absolutely necessary for implementing thescheme. The petitioners made a representation to the respondentsand requested them for re-conveyance of their lands under Section48-B of the Old Act. The highly competent Additional AdvocateGeneral further submits that if the requisitioning body, whichdid 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.V.Babu,appearing for the second and third respondents submits that thepetitioners' lands and along with others lands have been acquiredfor the purpose of implementing the Neighbourhood Scheme. Thesaid lands were acquired after strictly adhering to the Old Actand award was also passed. As such, there is no lapse on the sideof the respondents for acquiring the said land for the generalpublic. The highly competent counsel submits that the LandAcquisition Officer after acquiring the said land has handed overthe same to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. If the above writpetition is allowed, the respondents and the general public willbe put into hardship. Besides, the balance of convenience /social justice rests on the side of the respondents. Therefore,the above writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the highlycompetent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writpetition. 14. Per contra, the highly competent counselMr.C.Prakasam appearing for the petitioners submits that thepetitioners are still in possession and enjoying the saidproperty by way of doing cultivation. The Land AcquisitionOfficer stated that the property had been acquired and handedover the same on 19.11.1986. He further submits that there is noindication or signboard or fencing around the acquired land andthere is no personal security arrangement at the site so itclearly proves that the physical possession of the acquired landis not made and the occupation is under the control of the TamilNadu Housing Board. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled toseek remedy under Section 24(2) of the New Act. Hence, thehighly competent counsel appearing for the petitioners made adeep request to discharge the petitioners' lands from the saidso-called acquisition proceedings. 15. From the above discussion, this Court is of theview that:-(i) The respondents had initiated Land AcquisitionProceedings under the Old Act for acquiring the petitioners' landfor forming Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, in the year 1981 andthe same was completed in the year 1986. Even after a lapse of 27years, the said Housing Scheme has not been implemented. Assuch, the purpose for which, the Scheme was initiated had notbeen resolved.(ii) There is no material evidence that the propertyhad been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the LandAcquisition Officer. There is no iota of evidence, viz., signboard, fencing or watchman / security, to show that thepossession is with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, thepossession handed over by the Land Acquisition Officer to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Housing Board is treated only on a symbolic possessionand not in actuality in terms of physical possession. Besides,the compensation amount has not been paid to the landowners sofar. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to secure remedyunder Section 24(2) of New Act 30 of 2013.(iii) The Housing Schemes can be arranged anywhere,but the agricultural land tilled over the centuries cannot bereplaced. Therefore, the small farmers / writ petitioners andtheir families who are depending upon the said lands for theirlivelihood through cultivation 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.4,572 lakhs for theconstruction of 262 houses and flats, but this is only atPlanning stage and not materialized. Under the circumstances,considering the current prevailing position, if the acquired landis re-conveyed to the petitioners, the respondents will not beprejudiced, since the acquired land is lying vacant. The generalpublic will not be affected since alternative sites especially,un-cultivable lands are available for implementing the housingscheme elsewhere. Therefore, the balance of convenience / socialjustice rests on the side of the petitioners since thecultivation is also of paramount importance to the generalpublic.16. On considering the facts and circumstances of thecase and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on eitherside and this Court's view mentioned above (i) to (iv) and onperusing the typed set of papers, the above writ petition isallowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the thirdrespondent in his Letter No.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013 isquashed. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to re-convey the petitioners land comprised in S.No.82/1,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk & District to an extent of1.11.0 hectares to the petitioners within a period of threemonths from the date of receipts of a copy of this order.17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Thereis no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrarr n s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.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 ccs to Mr.C. Prakasam, Advocate sr. 2441 cc to Mr.R.V. Babu, Advocate, Sr. 3081 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 132W.P.No.6119 of 2013 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 &M.P.No.1 of 2014JSV (CO)kk 23/1