High Court · 2025

WP.No.29703 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANWP.No.29703 of 2019 andWMP.Nos.29598 & 29600 of 2019Vijayasamundeeswari ...PetitionerVs1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Madras 600 0092.The Director,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chennai -53.The Collector,Villupuram District.4.The Spl. Thasildar,,Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.5.Pazhangudi Irular Padhukappu Sangam,rep. By its Deputy Secretary K.Sivagami,334-H, Nehru Street (Poonthottam),Tindivanam 604 001(fifth respondent impleaded vide courtorder dated WMP.No.1324 of 2020 in WP.No.29703 of 2019 dated 08.10.2025)...Respondents1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Che Mu No. A 1/11361/ 2019 dated 13.8.2019 on the file of the 2nd respondent and Na Ka M1/ 24027 / 2016 dated 27.8.2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to release the property of the petitioner in S.No.244/1 of Pulichipallam village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District from any acquisition.For Petitioner : M/s.Srimathi V.For Respondents For R1 to 4 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.Balan Haridass, for Mr.J.NarayanaswamyORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 13.08.2019 and the order passed by the third respondent dated 27.08.2019 thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking reconveyence under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019and ordering to issue free house site patta in favour of irulars who are residing at Pulichipallam village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District after removing the encroachment if any. 2.The petitioner’s property comprised in survey no.244/1 measuring to an extent of 0.74.0 hectare situated at Pulichampallam, Vanur Taluk, Tindivanam were acquired by the Government for providing house sites for irulars by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 01.02.1991. Therefore, declaration notice was also issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 28.11.1991. Though land acquisition proceedings were challenged before this Court, it was negatived with liberty to submit application for re-conveyence. After submitting the representation for re-conveyence, it was rejected and the subject land was allotted for issuance of house site patta in favour of Irulars. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally there were 17 beneficiaries for whom rehabilitation proceedings were initiated and they were allotted different property in the said locality. They were issued patta. However, the strength of the irulars were increased 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019from 17 to 32 and they are keeping on making application for house site patta. It is totally unwarranted and the authorities have not taken any step to scrutinise their records while considering them as beneficiaries to issue house site patta. Though the petitioner is a purchaser of the subject property, she was not issued notice during the acquisition proceedings and as such she was given liberty to make application for re-conveyance of the subject land. She also relied upon the affidavit filed by the impleaded fifth respondent that at the time of acquisition, there were only 17 beneficiaries. Thereafter, it was increased and multiplied by two to three times. Therefore there are as many as 32 beneficiaries awaiting getting house site patta. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected for re-conveyence of the subject property.3.On perusal of the counter filed by the second respondent and also on submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader, it is revealed that the subject land was acquired for the purpose of issuing house site patta to irulars. In fact, challenge of land acquisition proceedings was already rejected by this Court. However, the petitioner was given liberty to submit application for re-conveyence of the subject property under Section 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 201948-B of the Land Acquisition Act. It was considered and subsequently rejected. The subject land was acquired for the purpose of issuance of free house site patta to landless adidravidar and irular tribal community people. Therefore, though the number of beneciaries increases such purpose still survives. Hence, the request made by the petitioner for re-conveyence of the land was rightly rejected by the respondents. Further, the third respondent rightly directed to identify the eligible beneficiaries to entrust the house site patta as early as possible. Now the free house site pattas have been issued to the irulars and they have occupied the same. That apart, the re-conveyence of the land as contemplated under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be sought for as a matter of right. A discretionary power vests with the Government to part with the land if the purpose for which the land was acquired no longer subsists or if the proposal to acquire the land was dropped for some reason. In fact, in the present case, both contingencies will not arise since the land was acquired for the purpose of providing free house site patta to adidravdar and irular tribal community people. Further, the said purpose still subsists and the land acquisition proceedings reached finality by passing award. Once an award has been passed for compensation, the land which vests with the Government is free from encumbrance. Therefore, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019the claim of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the subject land cannot be considered. Moreover the award was passed on 31.01.1994. After period of 25 years from the date of the award, the request for re-conveyance cannot be considered and it was rightly rejected by the respondents.4.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.08.10.2025lok(2/2) Index:Yes/NoNeutral citation:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019To1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Madras 600 0092.The Director,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chennai -53.The Collector,Villupuram District.4.The Spl. Thasildar,,Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.5.Pazhangudi Irular Padhukappu Sangam,rep. By its Deputy Secretary K.Sivagami,334-H, Nehru Street (Poonthottam),Tindivanam 604 0017/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.29703 of 2019G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokWP.No.29703 of 201908.10.2025 (2/2)8/8