Madrasdated High Court · 2015

For Respondents:Mr.S.Gomathinayagam Addl.Advocate Generalassisted by Mr.M.S.Ramesh Addl.Govt. Pleader for R1Mr.R.V.Babu, H.B., for R2 & R3* * * * *O R D E RReserved on :12.12.2014Pronounced on:05.01.2015The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order, dated08.03.2013, passed by the third respondent and consequently todirect the respondents to reconvey the petitioner's land, comprisedin S.Nos.68/3 & 6 of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk &District, measuring an extent of 1.83 Acres to the petitioner.The short facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner submits that she is having own landcomprised in Survey Nos.68/3 & 6, Ayyamperumalpatti Village, SalemTaluk and District. In the year 1981, the Tamil Nadu Governmentacquired her land to the extent of 1.83 Acres for the purpose ofimpleading the Housing Scheme i.e., construction of houses by theTamil Nadu Housing Board and in this connection the Governmentissued a 4(1) notification vide G.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department, dated 23.06.1981, after that under Section6 of the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration was published videG.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated07.07.1984, but subsequently after a lapse of two years the awardhas been passed on 23.09.1986 in Award No.07 of 1986-1987.3. Further, she submits that after acquisition of her landduring 1981, the Housing Board not at all implemented any schemefor construction of houses in her land and till today she is inpossession of the said land. Since she is an agriculturist, she isnot fully aware the land acquisition proceedings as well as theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act and after consulting lawknowing persons she came to understand that she should ask for re-conveyance and she should made written representation under Section48-B of the Land Acquisition Act instead of sending written https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation for exclusion of her land from Land AcquisitionProceedings.4. The petitioner further submits that she came to understandthat the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court were pleased topass orders with regard to re-conveyance of the land to theoriginal owners on the ground that if the Government or HousingBoard is not implemented the housing scheme for more than 15 to 20years, then the land owners can entitle to get the relief under theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act specifically under Section48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.5. Further, she submits that the respondents may aware thatthis Court was pleased to pass an Order in a batch of writ appealsin W.A.Nos.422 of 2011 etc., dated 14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance of land, wherein it is observed that:“It is seen that these batch of writpetitions are not the first set of cases, whichwere decided by this court, challenging the sameacquisition proceedings. It appears that thefirst batch of writ petitions were filed during1994, being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc., challengingthe Section 4(1) notification, the writ petitionswere disposed of by a common judgment, dated20.03.2001, by observing that it may not be properfor the State Government, to spent huge publicmoney for the acquisition proceedings, to acquirethe lands of the petitioners therein withsuperstructure and keep the land idle, if thescheme could not be successfully implemented.Therefore, this Court permitted the petitionerstherein to approach the Government seekingexemption or reconveyance. Another batch of caseswere filed during 1996 in W.P.Nos.9747 to 9749 of1996, challenging the notification issued underSec.4(1) and Section 6 of the Act and thenotifications were set aside, with the furtherobservation that the Government will take intoaccount ground realities before proceeding withthe acquisition. The other writ petitionchallenging the same acquisition proceedings inDr.N.Natarajan vs. Government, TNMANU/TN/0526/2020 was allowed and the notificationwas quashed. In Chinnayyagounder v. State of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu, 2003 (2) MLJ 481, the challenge was tothe same acquisition proceedings and the writpetition was allowed and the acquisition wasquashed. While allowing the said writ petition,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 seen that the Division Bench of this Courtin more than one decision has quashed the landacquisition proceedings in respect of the samescheme. In Arumuga Gounder vs. State of TamilNadu, reported in MANU/TN/7522/2006, the Hon'bleDivision Bench presided by Justice P.Sathasivam(as he then was) observed that the entireKalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has not beenimplemented till date and several orders have beenpassed by this Court, quashing the acquisitionproceedings. In M.Muraisamy vs. State of TamilNadu, reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 288, anotherDivision Bench of this Court quashed anotification in respect of the same scheme andobserved that it is not in dispute that the entireKalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has been dropped inview of the several orders passed by the Court.In Tmt.Leelavathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu,reported in MANU/TN/0586/2008 and in Dhandapaniand another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (5) MLJ1416, the learned Single Judges of this Court havequashed the notifications and took note of thefact that the entire Kalapatti NeighbourhoodScheme has been dropped. Therefore, we have nohesitation to hold that the learned Single Judgewas perfectly justified in following the earlierDivision Bench Judgment and allowing the writpetitions, wherever prayer was made for quashingthe acquisition proceedings.As noticed above, in the earlier batch ofAppeals, this Court, after taking note of thedecisions in Writ Petition Nos.12201 of 1994 etc.,batch dated 20.03.2001, Dr.N.Natarajan vs.Government, TN MANU/TN/0526/2010, Chinnayyagounderv. State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (2) MLJ 481, ArumugaGounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported inMANU/TN7522/2006, M.Duraisamy vs. State of TamilNadu, reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 288, Tmt.Leelavathivs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported inMANU/TN/0586/2008, and in Dhandapani and another https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (5) MLJ 1416,quashed the notification and held that the learnedSingle Judge was perfectly justified in allowingthe writ petitions by following the earlierDivision Bench Judgments.In that view of the matter, we have nohesitation to hold that the issues raised in thesebatch of appeals are squarely covered by theearlier decisions rendered by this Bench inW.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 2011, dated 16.08.2011 andalso taking note of the fact that there areseveral 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 WritPetitions and also in another batch of WritAppeals in W.A.Nos.252 to 255 of 2011, dated16.08.2011 (2011) 5 CTC 503, were disposed infavour of the land owners and yet another Judgmentdelivered by the Division Bench of this Court byciting the Supreme Court Judgment made in the caseof Hariram vs. State of Haryana (2010) 2 CTC 336,regarding with re-conveyance to the originalowners passed orders in W.A.Nos.1652 of 2010 etc.,(2010 (5) CTC 261) whereby observed that if it isthe land not utilized for which purpose it wasacquired for a very long time then the land ownersare entitled to get an order from the Governmentfor re-conveying their land.”6. The petitioner further submits that in the saidcircumstances, she made a request before the first respondent topass order under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act for re-conveying her land situated in Survey Nos.68/3 & 6,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District, to the extentof 1.83 Acres of land to her. In this connection, she made awritten representation on 21.01.2013 in that writtenrepresentation, she expressed her readiness to pay whatever thenecessary cost spent by the first respondent for acquisitionproceedings. After receipt of the said representation, the thirdrespondent, who do not have any power or jurisdiction to reject thepetitioner's request as per Section 48-B of the Land AcquisitionAct only the Government alone i.e., the first respondent havingpower to pass orders under Section 48-B of the Land AcquisitionAct. But, now the third respondent passed the impugned order inhis Letter No.LA.1/7337/79, dated 08.03.2013, whereby rejecting her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ request for re-conveyance of the said land. Hence, this writpetition has been filed.7. The third respondent Executive Engineer and AdministrativeOfficer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed a counter statement andresisted the writ petition. He submits that the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard, Salem Housing Unit proposed for Housing Scheme in S.No.68/3etc., measuring an extent of 29.36 Acres including the petitionmentioned land in Survey Nos.68/3 & 6 in Ayyamperumalpatti Village,Salem Taluk and Salem District. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved inG.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated23.06.1981. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department, dated 07.07.1984. After completion of landacquisition proceedings, the award was passed by the LandAcquisition Special Tahsildar, Salem in Award No.7/1986-1987, dated23.09.1986. As per the award, the land is registered in the nameof Karuppan Chetti @ Palniyappa Gounder, P.Muthusami, V.Manickam,Pavalakodi and the award amount of Rs.84,752.85 and Rs.59,508.30has been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Court, Salem,for the lands in Survey Nos.68/3 and 68/6 respectively.8. He further submits that after passing the award, theacquired lands in Survey Nos. 68/3 and 68/6 and some other acquiredlanded possession were taken over by the Land Acquisition SpecialTahsildar and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, SalemHousing Unit, on 19.11.1986. After taking possession of theacquired lands, Patta was also transferred by the RevenueAuthorities in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem HousingUnit, under Patta No.446. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1488 of 1987before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and thesame was dismissed.9. Further, he submits that the petitioner is fully aware ofthe land acquisition proceedings as she had requested forreconveyance of the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officerpassed the award vide Award No.7/86-87, dated 23.09.1986 and thepossession of the acquired lands were taken over on 19.11.1986 andmutation of revenue records also in the name of Tamil Nadu HousingBoard, Salem Housing Unit. The possession of the land has alreadybeen taken and Housing Scheme will be processed along with adjacentland in Survey No.82/6 shortly. The preparation of layout is underprocess. Therefore, the lands in Survey Nos. 68/3 and 68/6 areessentially required for formation of Comprehensive Housing Scheme.The petitioner had given a representation on 21.01.2013 requesting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ re-conveyance of the acquired lands in Survey Nos.68/3 and 68/6.The requisition was rejected by the first respondent. Theallegation of the petitioner that the third respondent rejected thepetitioner's representation is false. The first respondent is thesuperior of the third respondent, who rejected the petitioner'srepresentation and the same was communicated to her as theseacquired lands are essentially required for implementing theComprehensive Housing Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, inthese circumstances re-conveyance of the above said lands is notpossible.10. The third respondent further submits that the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravaniammal, (CTC)447 SC, held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under Section 48-Bwhere Award has been passed and possession has been taken, thecompensation payable under the award has been deposited. Therequest of the petitioner to reconvey the land is not consideredfavourably and rejected. No writ petition is filed challenging therejection of the representation to re-convey the land and no prayerof writ of certiorari to quash such rejection. Such order ofrejection become final. Further, it has been held that Section 48-B was introduced into the act only in the State of Tamil Nadu as anexception and such provision has to be strictly construedaccordingly and strict compliance with it's terms should beinsisted upon.11. He further submits that in Mohammed Ibrahim vs. AnnavasalPanchayat Union, rep.by it's Chairman Annavasal and others, 2012(2) CTC 389, this Court has observed as follows:“Application of Section 48-B will arise onlyif the requisitioning body did not use the landfor the purpose for which it was acquired”In the instant case, land had been put to use for the purpose forwhich it was acquired. Thus, invocation of Section 48-B of the Actfor re-conveyance of land would not arise in this situation.12. Further, he submits that in S.Balasubramaniam v. Secretaryto Government and another, reported in 2012 (4) CTC 510, this Courthas observed as follows:“As the value of the property has gone up.The petitioner attempts to get the property byabusing the process of Court, after a lapse of 60years. As the value of the properties is skyrocketing, the petitioner is trying his luck by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ these proceedings and such a claim is notsustainable in law. If the claims likepetitioner's, are entertained by this Court, itwill open a Pandora's box thereby many claims byerstwhile owners, whose properties were acquiredfor public purposes, would be made and it wouldnot be in the interest of public. The mattersalready reached finality about 50 years ago andthe same cannot be reopened. Rights of theparties already got crystallized long back and theneedle of the clock cannot be put in reverse. Theclaim itself is against the public interest, whichhas to be rejected in limini.”“When such is the position, the petitionercannot approach the respondents for reconveyanceof the land which was acquired over decades age.The attempt of the petitioner is nothing but anabuse of process of law. For having indulged inabuse of process of law and sought forreconveyance of the property, which was acquiredas early as 1949, the petitioner is liable to beslapped with very heavy cost. However, due tojudicial restraint, this Court is not awarding anycost. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissedwith the above observations.”13. Further, he submits that the ex-land owner had givenrepresentation under Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 on 21.01.2013 and the same was rejected by the firstrespondent on 17.05.2013, on the ground that the land isessentially required for Comprehensive Housing Scheme.14. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearing forthe petitioner submits that the respondents had issued anotification in the year 1981 for acquiring the petitioner's landto an extent of 1.83 Acres for the purpose of a NeighbourhoodScheme. After notification, a declaration was published on07.07.1984 i.e., after a lapse of two years and Award has beenpassed on 23.09.1986. As such, the third respondent has committeda lapse for acquiring the said land. As on date the acquired landsare still vacant, hence the petitioner made a representation to therespondents under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894for reconveyance of the land in the name of the petitioner, thesame was rejected stating that the preparation of layout is underprocess and the acquired land is essentially required for formationof Comprehensive Housing Scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The very competent counsel further submits that the landhad been acquired in the year 1984 and after acquiring the saidland the housing scheme had not been implemented, as such therespondents' proposal has been defeated. Further, the petitionerfiled a writ petition before this Court to consider herrepresentation, dated 21.01.2013, and the same was considered bythis Court and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider thepetitioner's representation on merits. However, the saidrepresentation has not been disposed by the respondents 1 and 2 onmerits, after prior notice to the petitioner, as such, the impugnedorder passed by the third respondent is not suitable since it isfound inappropriate.16. The highly competent counsel, in support of hiscontention, has placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by theHon'ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.10.2014, inW.A.No.2254 of 2001, Varadaraja Naicker v. The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) and another and Order of this Court, dated27.06.2014, W.P.No.10010 of 2014, B.Rukmani and others v. TheMember Secretary, C.M.D.A., and another.17. In W.A.No.2254 of 2001, Varadaraja Naicker v. The SpecialTahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another, the Hon'ble DivisionBench of this Court has observed as follows:“9.Since the lands in question belonging tothe appellant have not been taken possessionwithin 5 years, Section 24(2) of the Act wouldhave application and therefore, Land Acquisitionproceedings initiated against the appellant hereinshall be deemed to have been lapsed. That apart,in compliance of the judgment rendered by theConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia (cited supra), the Government had withdrawnthe land acquisition proceedings in respect ofsome landowners in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 01.03.2007and the appellant herein has also submitted arepresentation for withdrawal of land acquisitionproceedings and applying the Principle of Parity,he is also entitled for similar benefit, subjectto the condition that if he has received anycompensation, he shall be liable to remit the sameto the Government.10.In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowedand the order dated 30.07.1998 made inW.P.No.11697 of 1987 is set aside and the secondrespondent is directed to reconvey the lands in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.Nos.218/1B, 218/1B, 218/2B and 219/1, totallyadmeasuring 10.21 Acres situated in PotheriVillage, Chengalpattu District, to the appellantsubject to the condition that if the appellant hasreceived the compensation in terms of the AwardNo.7/1986, dated 17.09.1986, he shall remit backthe same within a period of six weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order and ifnot, the second respondent is directed to re-convey the above said lands to the appellantherein within a period of twelve weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this Order. Nocosts. If the official respondents are of theopinion that the lands in question still requiredfor public purpose, they may do so by invoking theprovisions of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013.”18. In W.P.No.10010 of 2014, B.Rukmani and others v. TheMember Secretary, C.M.D.A., and another, this Court has observed asfollows:“12.The ratio decidenti laid down by theHon'ble Apex Court followed by the Division Benchas stated supra is squarely applicable to thefacts of the present case, wherein also, thecompensation which is not received by the landowners, is deposited in the Revenue account and isnot equated to “paid to the land owners or personsinterested”. In the present case, the award,having been passed before 20 years prior to newAct and the possession having not been taken andcompensation amount having not been deposited inthe court concerned, the acquisition proceedingsinitiated in respect of the land in question isdeemed to have lapsed.”Hence, the learned counsel prays this Court to allow this writpetition.19. The highly competent Additional Advocate General submitsthat the subject landed property had been acquired after observingnecessary legal formalities as per the old Act. The initialnotification had been issued in the year 1981 and a draftdeclaration was published under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct, on 07.07.1984 and thereafter the award No.7/1986-1987, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.09.1986, was passed. At the time of initiating acquisitionproceedings, the subject land was registered in the name ofKaruppan Chetti @ Palniyappa Gounder, P.Muthusami, V.Manickam andPavalakodi. The award amount of Rs.84,752,85 and Rs.59,508.30 havebeen deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 ofthe Act to the Sub-Court, Salem.20. The very competent Additional Advocate Generaladditionally submits that the acquired lands were handed over tothe Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the Special Tahsildar/LandAcquisition Officer. Therefore, all the records have been mutatedin the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The very same petitionerhas filed a writ petition before this Court on an earlier occasionand the same was dismissed on merits. Further, the preparation ofthe layout is under process for implementing the ComprehensiveHousing Scheme. Under such circumstances, the petitioner made arepresentation before the respondents for re-conveyance of theacquired land and the same was rejected after assigning validreasons.21. Further, the compensation amount had been deposited beforethe Sub Court, Salem and the same was intimated to the petitionerherein. The acquired landed property is absolutely required forthe formation of Comprehensive Housing Scheme at Salem. The Pattaalso transferred in the name of Housing Board. The petitioner madea representation as an after-thought, hence the learned AdditionalAdvocate General entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.Since there is no lapse or shortcoming or lacuna for acquiring thesaid land under the old Act, the neighbourhood housing scheme is ofparamount importance.22. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasamsubmits that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated by theLand Acquisition Officer in the name of the erst-while owner andnot in the name of the petitioner. Further, the compensationamount was not paid to the petitioner besides the petitioner is inpossession and enjoyment of the said property. The respondentssofar have not implemented the said housing scheme. The draftdeclaration was issued in the year 1984 and the award was passed inthe year 1986. After a lapse of 28 years, the neighbourhood schemehas not been implemented, as such the petitioner's land is notabsolutely required for the said purpose. Further, the petitioneris in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The LandAcquisition Officer had handed over the land only symbolically. Assuch the entire proceedings for acquiring the said lands acquiresthe state of lapsing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. From the above discussions, this Court is of the opinionthat:(i) The third respondent had acquired the said land inthe year 1984 after necessary notification, dated07.07.1984. The award was passed on 23.09.1986 inaward No.07 of 1986-1987 ie., after a lapse of twoyears, as such the Land Acquisition Officer hadnot strictly adhered to the land acquisitionproceedings as per the old Act. Therefore, thereis a lapse on the side of the respondents.(ii) The award amount had been deposited in thename of the erstwhile owner, but not to thepresent owner namely the petitioner herein as suchthe land acquisition proceedings is not properlyfollowed.(iii) The 4(1) notification was issued in the year1981 and declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act was published in the year 1984 andaward was passed in the year 1986 and possessionwas taken over in the year 1986. As on date theComprehensive Housing Scheme has not beenimplemented, as such there is a huge delay i.e.,about 28 years for implementing the scheme and theacquired land is still vacant. Under suchcircumstances, the acquired land if re-conveyed tothe petitioner, the respondents will not beprejudiced or put into hardship or any otherirreparable loss, since the compensation amount islying in the Court custody.24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andarguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and onperusing the typed set papers of both parties and the views (i) to(iii) mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order, dated 08.03.2013, passed by the third respondent isquashed. Further, this Court directs the respondents to reconveythe petitioner's land situated in Survey Nos.68/3 and 68/6,Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk & District to the extent of1.83 Acres of land to the petitioner. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar(J)//True Copy//Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ krkTo:1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort 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.+1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate Sr 133+1cc to Mr.R.V.Babu, Advocate Sr 311+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 256BVR(CO)km/30.1.W.P.No.8746 of 2013