Madrascav High Court · 2015

O R D E RThe short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner submits that he is owning a land to an extentof 0.93 acres situated in S.No.83/3, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk and District. In the year 1981, the Tamil NaduGovernment acquired his land for the purpose of implementing theHousing Scheme i.e., construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard. In this connection, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued 4(1)Notification in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment dated 03.06.1981, after that under Section 6 Declarationwas published in G.O.Ms.No.449, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 12.06.1984, but subsequently after lapse of twoyears, the award has been passed on 19.09.1986 in Award No.13 of1986-1987. 2. The petitioner further submits that after acquisition ofhis land in the year 1981, the Housing Board had not at allimplemented any scheme for construction of houses in his land andtill date, he is in possession of the said land. The petitionerfurther submits that since he is an agriculturist, he is not fullyaware of the land acquisition proceedings as well as the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act and after consulting law knowingpersons, then only he came to understand that he should ask for re-conveyance as he should make written representation under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act instead of sending written representationfor exclusion of his land from Land Acquisition Proceedings.3. The petitioner further submits that he came to understandthat this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleasedto pass orders with regard to re-conveyance of the land to theoriginal owners on the ground that, if the Government or HousingBoard has not implemented the housing scheme, i.e., construction ofthe houses for more than 15 years to 20 years, then the landownerscan be entitled to get relief under the provisions of LandAcquisition Act, specifically under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act. Accordingly, he made written representationrequesting the first respondent herein to re-convey the land underSection 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner furthersubmits that the first respondent is also aware that this Court waspleased to pass orders in the batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.422 of2011 etc., dated 14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance of land, "It is seen that theme batch of writ petitions are notthe first set of cases, which were decided by this Court,challenging the same acquisition proceedings. It appearsthat the first batch of writ petitions were filed during1994 being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc., challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 4(1) Notification, the writ petitions were disposedof by a common judgment, dated 20.03.2001, by observingthat it may not be proper for the State Government, tospend huge public money for the acquisition proceedings, toacquire the lands of the petitioners therein withsuperstructure and keep the land idle, if the scheme couldnot be successfully implemented. Therefore, this Courtpermitted the petitioners therein to approach theGovernment seeking exemption of re-conveyance. Anotherbatch of cases were filed during 1996 in W.P.Nos.9747 to9749 of 1996, challenging the notification issued underSection 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act and the notificationswere set-aside, with the further observation that theGovernment will take into account ground realities beforeproceeding with 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 same acquisitionproceedings and the writ petition was allowed and theacquisition was quashed. While allowing the said writpetition, the Court took note of the fact that they wereapproved layouts and even as per the policy of theGovernment, those lands are not to be acquired. It is seenthat the Division Bench of this Court in more than onedecision has quashed the Land Acquisition Proceedings inrespect of the same scheme. In Arumuga Gounder Vs. State ofTamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006, the Hon'bleDivision Bench presided by Justice P.Sathasivam (as he thenwas observed that the entire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Schemehas not been implemented till date and several orders havebeen passed by this Court, quashing the acquisitionproceedings. In M.Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadureported in 2007(3) MLJ 288, another Division Bench of thisCourt, quashed a notification, in respect of the samescheme and observed that it is not in dispute that theentire Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has been dropped inview of the several orders passed by this Court. InTmt.Leelavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported inMANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani and another Vs. Stateof Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1416, the learnedSingle Judges of this Court have quashed the notificationsand took note of the fact that the entire KalapattiNeighbourhood Scheme has been dropped. Therefore, we haveno hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge wasperfectly justified in following the earlier Division BenchJudgment and allowing the writ petitions, wherever prayerwas made for quashing the acquisition proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As noticed above, in the earlier batch of appeals, thisCourt after taking note of the decisions in Writ PetitionNos.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 Tamil Nadureported in 2003 (2) MLJ 481, Arumuga Gounder Vs. State ofTamil 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 reported inMANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapani and another Vs. Stateof Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1416, quashed theNotification, and held that the learned Single Judge wasperfectly justified in allowing the writ petitions byfollowing the earlier Division Bench Judgments. 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 by thisBench in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 2011, dated 16.08.2011 andalso taking note of the fact that there are severalDivision Bench decisions of this Court, quashing thenotifications in respect of the same scheme on identicalgrounds. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with theorder passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing thewrit petitions and also in another batch of Writ Appeals inW.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 201, dated 16.08.2011 (2011 (5) CTC503) were disposed in favour of the landowners and yetanother judgment delivered by the Division Bench of thisCourt by citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment made inthe case of Hariram Vs. State of Haryana (2010 (2) CTC 336)with regard to re-conveyance to the original owners passedorders in W.A.Nos.1652 of 2010 etc., (2010 (5) CTC 261),whereby observed that if it is the land not utilized forwhich purpose was acquired for a very long time, then thelandowners are entitled to get an order from the Governmentfor re-conveying their land."4. The petitioner further submits that in the saidcircumstances, he made request before the first respondent to passorder under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act for re-conveying hisland situated in S.No.83/3, Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Talukand District to the extent of 0.93 acres of land to him. In thisconnection, he made written representation on 11.01.2013 and in thatwritten representation, he expressed his readiness to pay whateverthe necessary cost spent by the first respondent for acquisitionproceedings. After receipt of the said representation, the thirdrespondent who does not have any power or jurisdiction to reject hisrequest as per Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act and only theGovernment alone, i.e., the first respondent herein is having powerto pass orders under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act. But, now https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the third respondent passed the impugned order in his LetterNo.Ni.A.1/7337/79, dated 25.02.2013, whereby rejecting his requestfor re-conveyance of the said land. Hence, the petitioner entreatsthe Court to allow the above writ petition.5. The first respondent has not filed any counter statementin the above writ petition. However, the first respondent herein hasfiled a counter statement in the connected writ petition inW.P.No.6119 of 2013. The highly competent counsel appearing for thefirst respondent requests this Court that the counter statement filedin the connected writ petition in W.P.No.6119 of 2013, may be takeninto consideration in the above writ petition also since the factsare one and the same. The counter statement filed by the firstrespondent in Writ Petition No.6119 of 2013, reads as follows:-(i) The first respondent submits that the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard of Salem Housing Unit has proposed acquisition of lands forHousing Scheme in S.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extent of 42.69acres including petitioner's land at Salem of AyyamperumalpattiVillage, Salem Taluk and District. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was approved in G.O.(Ms)No.455,Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.06.1981 and waspublished in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28/A at Pages 3 and4 Supplemental to Part II Section 2, dated 22.07.1981. The enquiryunder Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by theSpecial Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 21.12.1981.The 3(b) enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem on 07.06.1982. The first respondentfurther submits that the Draft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 ofthe Act was approved in G.O.(Ms)No.538, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 07.07.1984 and was published at pages 1 to 5 in theExtraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28, dated18.07.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar(LA), 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 the petitioner'sland. The first respondent further submits that as per the awardreport bearing S.F.No.82/1 measuring an extent of 2.74 acres standsregistered in the Name of Srinivasan, Palanisamy, Prakasam,Namachivayam S/o.Duraisamy. The compensation amount awarded to themof Rs.1,93,810.05 for S.F.No.82/1 was deposited into Sub Court, Salemby the Land Acquisition Officer. (ii) The first respondent further submits that the abovesaid lands were 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 under Courtcase. After disposal of the case, the layout was prepared throughapproach from Varama Garden Private Road and got approved by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Board vide Town Planning / Tamil Nadu Housing Board No.7/2013, dated08.02.2013. The same was sent to the Salem Local Planning Authorityand they approved the road pattern. Based on that the scheme proposalfor construction of various types of houses has been submitted toBoard, which is under scrutiny for getting approval. The firstrespondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Government acquiredthe lands in Salem District and Taluk, Ayyamperumalpatti Villagebearing S.F.No.68/3 etc., measuring an extent of 42.69 acresincluding the petitioners land in S.F.No.82/1 (2.74 acres) for thepurpose of constructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board forthe general 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 Acquisition Officerand handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 19.11.1986. Now, theTamil Nadu Housing Board got approval from the Director of Town andCountry Planning for the layout for construction of 262 Houses andflats and also the Tamil Nadu Government has provided a sum ofRs.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 possession has been taken and the scheme also going tobe implemented. In these circumstances, re-conveyance of the land isimpossible. The first respondent further submits that the petitionerhas given a representation on 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance ofthe land. The requisition also rejected by the Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioner's allegation is that thethird respondent rejected the petitioner's requisition is false. Thesecond respondent who is the superior to the third respondent isrejected the petitioner's requisition. The first respondent furthersubmits that the Ho'ble High Court in Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. AnnavasalPanchayat Union Rep. by its Chairman Annavasal 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) observed asfollows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "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. These 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 age. The attempt of thepetitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Forhaving indulged in abuse of process of law and sought forre-conveyance of the property, which was acquired as earlyas 1949, the petitioner is liable to be slapped with veryheavy cost. However, due to judicial restraint, this Courtis not awarding any cost. Accordingly, the writ petition isdismissed 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 handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on19.11.1986. The Director of Town and Country Planning also approvedproposal for layout for construction of 262 houses and flats. Hence,the first respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit andopposed the writ petition. The third respondent further submits thatthe Tamil Nadu Housing Board of Salem Housing Unit has proposedacquisition of lands for housing scheme in S.F.No.83/1 etc.,measuring an extent of 44.34 acres including petitioner's land atSalem of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. TheNotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act wasapproved in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing & Urban Development Departmentdated 03.06.1981 and was published in Tamil Nadu Government GazetteNo.23/A at pages 8 to 18 Supplemental to Part II Section 2 dated17.06.1981 and the errata published in Supplemental Part II Section 2of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.31A dated 12.08.1981 at pageNo.5. The enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act wasconducted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salemon 12.10.1981. The 3(b) enquiry was conducted by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), NHS, Salem on 18.03.1982.The third respondent further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submits that Draft Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the LandAcquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.449, Housing & UrbanDevelopment Department dated 12.06.1984 and was published at pages 1to 5 in the extra ordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government GazetteNo.248, dated 14.06.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted by theSpecial Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme on 11.09.1986 for theabove said land. The award was passed by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem for an extent of 13.99 acres includingthe petitioner's land. As per the award report bearing theS.F.No.83/3 measuring an extent of 3.59 acres stands registeredjointly in the name of Thirisangu S/o.Perumal Gounder, Manokaran,S/o.Dharmalingam. They are given consent to get the compensation withobjection for Higher compensation. Hence, the compensation amountawarded to them of Rs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/3 was deposited intoSub Court, Salem by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. The third respondent further submits that the said landwas taken over on 09.11.1995 from the Special Tahsildar (LA). Theselands could not be utilized immediately by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard for Housing Scheme since the surroundings lands are under Courtcase. After disposal of the case, the layout was prepared throughapproach from Varama Garden private road and got approved by theBoard vide TP/TNHB No.7/2013, dated 08.02.2013. The same was sent tothe Salem Local Planning Authority and they have approved the roadpattern. Based on that, the scheme proposal for construction of 262houses under G+1 pattern was approved by the Board for Rs.3834 lakhson 25.03.2013. The third respondent further submits that the TamilNadu Government acquired the lands in Salem District and Taluk,Ayyamperumalpatti Village bearing S.F.No.83/1 etc., measuring to anextent of 44.34 acres including the petitioner's land in S.F.No.83/3for the purpose of constructing houses by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard for the public. The Land Acquisition Officer, NeighbourhoodScheme, awarded compensation for the petitioner's land ofRs.1,69,385.60 for S.F.No.83/3 which was deposited in Sub Court,Salem. After passing of the Award (Award No.13/86-87, dated23.09.1986), the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Officerand handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 09.11.1995. Now, theTamil Nadu Housing Board submitted the layout for approval from theSalem Local Planning Authority for construction of various types ofhouses and flats. In addition, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board hasprovided a sum of Rs.3834 lakhs for the construction works. Thethird respondent further submits that the petitioner was fully awareabout the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitioner now requestedre-conveyance of the land for the said land already in possession hasbeen taken and the scheme also going to be implemented. In thesecircumstances, re-conveyance of the land is not impossible. The thirdrespondent further submits that the petitioner has given arepresentation on 11.01.2013 requesting re-conveyance of the land.The requisition also rejected by the requisitioning body of TamilNadu Housing Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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) Section 48-BApplication under Section 48-B will arise only whenrequisitioning body did not use land for purpose for whichit was acquired. In the instant case, land had been put touse for purpose for it was acquired - Thus invocation ofSection 48-B for re-conveyance of land would not arise inthis 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 ofland acquired for purpose of burial ground in the year 1949- representation made by petitioner, was rejected byGovernment - Matter has reached finality about sixty yearsago and same cannot be reopened - Rights of parties hasalready crystallized along back and needle of clock cannotbe put in reverse - petitioner cannot compel Government tore-convey land after six decades - Government has statedthat land is needed for public purposes - Only aftersubjective satisfaction that land is not required.Government can transfer to erstwhile owner - It is notmandatory for Government to transfer such lands -Petitioner attempts to get property by abusing process ofCourt after a lapse of sixty years - Since value ofproperty is sky rocketing, petitioner is trying his luck -If claim made by petitioner is entertained, it will open aPandora's Box - petitioner is not having any right overproperty - He can at best be called a stranger with a falseclaim - Due to rise in population there is increasingnumber of deaths - Expansion of burial ground is certainlya 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 for theconstruction of 262 houses and flats. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board isalso provided a sum of Rs.3834/- lakhs for the construction work andthe land is very much essential for implementation of housing scheme.Hence, the third respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the abovewrit petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearing forthe petitioner 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 petitioner's 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 that thepetitioner is an agriculturist and he and his family is dependingupon the cultivation of his land for his livelihood. The petitionerwas not aware of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. The petitionermade a representation on 11.01.2013 under Section 48-B of the LandAcquisition Act for re-conveyance of the land to him since theacquired lands are kept vacant. The respondents had not implementedthe Neighbourhood Scheme for the past 25 years. As such, the originalpurpose was defeated. Further, the petitioner has not received anycompensation for his land. Further, the respondents have taken asymbolic possession of the land, but not in actuality in terms ofphysical possession. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seekrelief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013. The highlycompetent counsel has cited a judgment in Writ Appeal No.422 of 2011,etc., in which, the landowners have obtained remedy for re-conveyanceand as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive similar remedysince the instant case is also similar in nature. The highlycompetent counsel 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 regard tothe possession of the land with the petitioners and in viewof Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013 and in viewof the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in(2014) 3 SCC 183 (Pune Municipal Corporation and another v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others), which has beenfollowed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.918of 2010 dated 03.04.2014 (P.Jayadevan v. The StateGovernment, rep. by its Secretary, to Government, Housingand Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others), we are of the view that the petitioners areentitled to succeed in W.P.No.8498 of 2000 and the entireacquisition proceedings have to be declared as lapsed byvirtue of introduction of Section 24(2) of the LandAcquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(Central Act 30 of 2013)." (ii) W.A.No.2254 of 2001, dated 29.10.2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "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 herein hasalso submitted a representation for withdrawal of landacquisition proceedings and applying the Principle ofParity, he is also entitled for similar benefit, subject tothe condition 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 and theorder dated 30.07.1998 made in W.P.No.11697 of 1987 is set-aside and the second respondent is directed to re-conveythe lands in S.Nos.218/1B, 218/1B, 218/2B and 219/1,totally admeasuring 10.21 acres situated in PotheriVillage, Chengalpattu District, to the appellant subject tothe condition that if the appellant has received thecompensation in terms of the Award No.7/1986, dated17.09.1986, he shall remit back the same within a period ofsix weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orderand if not, the second respondent is directed to re-conveythe above said lands to the appellant herein within aperiod of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. No costs. If the official respondents are ofthe opinion that the lands in question are still requiredfor public purpose, they may do so by invoking theprovisions 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 submits thatthe first respondent had issued in G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 03.06.1981for acquiring the petitioner's lands and neighbouring lands forimplementing Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Thereafter, the LandAcquisition Officer had conducted an enquiry as per Section 5A of theOld Act. Thereafter, a draft declaration was published in theGovernment Gazette. Subsequently, an award was passed andcompensation amount had been deposited into the Sub Court, Salem andthe 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, the Scheme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ could not be implemented within a reasonable period. After disposalof all Court cases, now the Scheme will be carried out at theearliest. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had sent an approval to theSalem Local Planning Authority, for which, the Board had passed aresolution dated 08.02.2013. The respondents have acquired 42.69acres including the petitioner's 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 was handedover to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Boardhad secured approval from the Town and Country Planning Departmentfor lay out of construction of 262 houses and flats, for which, theTamil Nadu Government has provided a sum of Rs.3,834/- lakhs towardsthe construction work and this is the prevailing current position.12. The highly competent Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the first respondent further added that thepetitioner's land is absolutely necessary for implementing thescheme. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents andrequested them for re-conveyance of his lands under Section 48-B ofthe Old Act. The highly competent Additional Advocate General furthersubmits that if the requisitioning body, which did not use the landfor the said purpose, only then, the petitioner is entitled to getrelief. In the instant case, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had securedapproval from the Town and Country Planning Department forimplementing the Neighbourhood Housing Scheme in the interest of thegeneral public. The State Government has also provided adequate fundsto execute the said purpose. Hence, the highly competent AdditionalAdvocate General entreats the Court to dismiss the above writpetition.13. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.V.Babu, appearing forthe second and third respondents submits that the petitioner's landsand along with others lands have been acquired for the purpose ofimplementing the Neighbourhood Scheme. The said lands were acquiredafter strictly adhering to the Old Act and award was also passed. Assuch, there is no lapse on the side of the respondents for acquiringthe said land for the general public. The highly competent counselsubmits that the Land Acquisition Officer after acquiring the saidland has handed over the same to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Ifthe above writ petition is allowed, the respondents and the generalpublic will be put into hardship. Besides, the balance of convenience/ social justice rests on the side of the respondents. Therefore, theabove writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the highly competentcounsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 14. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasamappearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still inpossession and enjoying the said property by way of doingcultivation. The Land Acquisition Officer stated that the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had been acquired and handed over the same on 09.11.1995. He furthersubmits that there is no indication or signboard or fencing aroundthe acquired land and there is no personal security arrangement atthe site so it clearly proves that the physical possession of theacquired land is not made and the occupation is under the control ofthe Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the petitioner is entitledto seek remedy under Section 24(2) of the New Act. Hence, the highlycompetent counsel appearing for the petitioner made a deep request todischarge the petitioner's land from the said so-called acquisitionproceedings. 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 petitioner's land forforming Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, in the year 1981 and the samewas completed in the year 1986. Even after a lapse of 27 years, thesaid Housing Scheme has not been implemented. As such, the purposefor which, the Scheme was initiated had not been resolved.(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., sign board,fencing or watchman / security to show that the possession is withthe Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the possession handed overby the Land Acquisition Officer to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board istreated only on a symbolic possession and not in actuality in termsof physical possession. Besides, the compensation amount has not beenpaid to the landowners so far. Hence, the petitioner is alsoentitled to secure remedy under Section 24(2) of New Act 30 of 2013.(iii) The Housing Schemes can be arranged anywhere, but theagricultural land tilled over the centuries cannot be replaced.Therefore, the small farmer / writ petitioner and his family who isdepending upon the said lands for his livelihood through cultivationshould not be disturbed.(iv) As per the counter statement filed by the respondents,it is seen that the Tamil Nadu Government has sanctioned a hugeamount i.e., Rs.3,834/- lakhs for the construction of 262 houses andflats, but this is only at Planning stage and not materialized.Under the circumstances, considering the current prevailing position,if the acquired land is re-conveyed to the petitioner, therespondents will not be prejudiced, since the acquired land is lyingvacant. The general public will not be affected since alternativesites especially, un-cultivable lands are available for implementingthe housing scheme elsewhere. Therefore, the balance ofconvenience / social justice rests on the side of the petitionersince the cultivation is also of paramount importance to the generalpublic. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. On considering the facts and circumstances of the caseand arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side andthis Court's view mentioned above (i) to (iv) and on perusing thetyped 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 thepetitioner's land comprised in S.No.83/3, Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk & District to an extent of 0.93 acres to the petitionerwithin a period of three months from the date of receipts of a copyof this order.17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There is noorder as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.r n s -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) Dt:23/1/2015 True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrarTo1. 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 244 (vidw WP 6118/13)+ 1 cc to Mr.R.V.Babu, Advocate SR 309+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court, Madras SR 132 (Vide WP.6118/13)jsv(co)prk23/1 W.P.No.6120 of 2013 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 &M.P.No.1 of 2014