G.V. Krishna Setty & Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 11.08..2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR. A.K. GANGULY, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLAM.P. No.2 of 2008andWrit Appeal No.922 of 20081.G.V. Krishna Setty2.G.V. Rajagopal Setty3.G.K. Prekumar4.A.K. Dwarkanath5.A.K. Harinath6.A.K. Subramaniam7.A.S. Nagaraja Gupta8.A.S. Padmanabha Gupta.. Appellants/Petitioners[Cause title accepted vide order of Courtdated 9.6.2008 made in M.P. No.1 of 2008in W.A. SR. No.29065 of 2008] versus1.Government of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary,Housing and Urban Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,331, Anna Salai, Chennai-35.3.The Superintending Engineer,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Vellore Region, Vellore-9.4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Hosur Housing Unit,Bagalur Road, Hosur-109. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Special Tahsildar,Neighbourhood Scheme, Hosur.6.M. Jaganathan7.M. Kishore Kumar8.K.S. Hasmukh Patel9. S. Lajapathy Reddiyar (Kanjam)10.A.V. Balasubramaniam11.S. Shanthi12.S. Moorthy13.B. Latha14.C. Saradhambal .. Respondents- - - - -Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of a learned single Judge of thisCourt dated 10.9.2005 made in W.P. No.9609 of 2004.Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India praying for certiorari man toissue a writ of certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to the orders of the 1st respondent namely theSecretary to Government, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Secretariat, Chennai in letter No.25305/LA2/(2)/03-3 dated 11.2.2004 and to quash thesame and consequently direct the 1st respondent toretransfer the land which has not been utilized forthe housing Scheme out of 2.10 acres in S.No.315,Hosur village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District undersection 48-B of L.A act as amended by the L.A (T.N)Act 1996 (Act XIV of 1997) to the petitioner. - - - - -For Appellants : M/s. Gupta & Ravi For Respondents-1 & 5 : Mr. J. Raja Kalifulla, Govt. PleaderFor Respondents-2 to 4 : Mr. K. ChelladuraiFor Respondents-11 to 13: Mr. S. Kumar (Respondent-6 Deceased)J U D G M E N T( Delivered by The Honourable the Chief Justice )Heard the learned counsel for the parties. M.P. No.2 of2008 has been filed for condonation of delay of 903 days in thepresentation of the appeal. The explanation which has beenoffered in the petition is that the writ petitioners changed thevakalatnama of the advocate who initially represented them and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gave it in favour of another advocate. After doing that, thewrit petitioners virtually did not take any step in the matterand about four years after the writ petition was filed, someenquiry was made about this case. Such enquiry being made on3.3.2008, the writ petitioners came to know that the writpetition was disposed of by an order dated 10.9.2005. This isthe explanation given in the petition filed under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act.2. However, since the explanation has been given referringto some laches on the part of the lawyer, we are condoning thedelay and M.P. No.2 of 2008 is ordered as prayed for.3. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find that theimpugned order which was passed by the learned Judge of the writcourt disposing of the writ petition runs as follows :-"The request made by the writ petitioners toexclude the lands from the acquisition proceedingsstands rejected. Perused the impugned order. Itshows that the acquired lands, after the award, havebeen handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board asearly as on 9.4.1986 and the entire extent of land hadbeen utilised as mentioned in the impugned order. Toget exclusion of the land under Section 48-B of theLand Acquisition Act, the acquired land must continueto vest with the Government and the purpose for whichthe land was acquired should not subsist. Since boththe material aspects are absent in this case, theimpugned order cannot be found fault with.Accordingly, it is sustained and the writ petitionstands dismissed."4. From the materials available on record, it appears thatthe Government of Tamil Nadu acquired land of the writpetitioners, the appellants herein, measuring an extent of 2.10acres, for the purpose of construction of houses under the HosurNeighbourhood Scheme by issuing the declaration under Section 6of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as'the said Act') on 13.9.1985. Award No.1 of 1985 came to bepassed on 14.2.1986 and possession of the land was handed overto the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 9.4.1986. Aggrieved by thesaid acquisition, the appellants earlier filed a writ petitionbeing W.P. No.24008 of 2003, in which the appellants made aprayer for re-transfer of the acquired land. The said writpetition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on8.9.2003 with a direction that the application of the appellantsunder Section 48-B of the said Act may be considered and orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be passed on the same within five months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of the said order. Thereupon, therepresentation of the appellants was disposed of by theSecretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department by order dated 11.2.2004. By the saidorder, the Secretary to Government, while rejecting therepresentation of the appellants, stated that their applicationunder Section 48-B of the Act has been examined in consultationwith the requisitioning body, viz. the Tamil Nadu Housing Boardand it was found that the land measuring 2.10 acres in SurveyNo.315, Hosur Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District wasacquired under Award No.1/1985 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Boardhas taken over possession of the land on 9.4.1986 andthereafter, the said land has been utilised. The details ofsuch utilisation were also mentioned in the said order, whichare set out hereunder :-Theatre site 52E (sold by auction)3345.00 sq.m.OHT 52F 720.00 sq.m.Channel 52D2824.00 sq.m.Road 24 metre and 9 metre wide1608.83 sq.m.------------------Total8496.33 sq.m.------------------(or) 2.10 acres------------------After giving such details, the Secretary to Government hasstated in his order that the entire extent of the land of 2.10acres has been fully utilised and therefore, the request of theappellants for re-conveyance cannot be complied with.5. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 48-Bof the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (TamilNadu Act 16 of 1997). The said section runs as follows :-"48-B. Transfer of land to original owner incertain cases.–- Where the Government are satisfiedthat the land vest in the Government under this Act isnot required for the purpose for which it wasacquired, or for any other public purpose, theGovernment may transfer such land to the originalowner who is willing to repay the amount paid to himunder this Act for the acquisition of such landinclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A) and (2) of section 23, if any, paid under thisAct."From a perusal of the said section, it appears that when theGovernment is satisfied that the land which vests in theGovernment under the said Act is not required for the purposefor which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government may transfer such land to the original owner who iswilling to repay the amount paid to him under the Act for theacquisition of such land. 6. In the instant case, from the order of the Secretary toGovernment referred to above, it appears that the entire landhas been utilised and particulars thereof have also beenfurnished.7. In the background of these facts, it is difficult forthis Court to entertain the prayer of the appellants for re-conveyance. It may be noted in this connection that Section 48-B of the said Act does not give the appellants any right toclaim re-conveyance. The said section merely empowers theGovernment to re-convey, provided the conditions specified inthe said section are fulfilled. In the instant case, pursuantto the Court's order on the writ petition filed by theappellants, the Secretary to Government has considered thematter and disposed of the representation of the appellants by areasoned order, giving particulars thereof. In that view of thematter, it is not possible for this Court to go behind thisorder. Learned counsel for the appellants is trying to assertthat the particulars given in the said order are factuallyincorrect. It is difficult for this Court to reopen the saidproceeding which was concluded by Award No.1 of 1985 and thetaking over of the possession of the land by the Tamil NaduHousing Board on 9.4.1986. So, after a gap of 22 years, it isnot prudent for a writ court to enter into such factualcontroversy. Learned counsel for the Housing Board also submitsthat the land of the appellants has been utilised in the mannerin which it has been stated in the order of the Secretary toGovernment, Housing and Urban Development Department dated11.2.2004.8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find anymerit in the writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs. AbSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu,Housing and Urban Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,331, Anna Salai, Chennai-35.3.The Superintending Engineer,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Vellore Region, Vellore-9.4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Hosur Housing Unit,Bagalur Road, Hosur-109.5.The Special Tahsildar,Neighbourhood Scheme, Hosur.SSN(CO)SR/19.8.2008 M.P. No.2 of 2008 Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008