2007 Supreme(SC) 356

2007(3) Supreme 216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board—Appellant
versus
Keeravani Ammal & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5928-5929 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5932, 5938, 5933 and 5934 of 2004)
Decided on 15-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, K.V. Vishwanathan, Ms. Haripriya and Ms. V. Mohana, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, V. Balaji, Mrs. T.S. Shanthi, Rakesh K. Sharma and T. Harish Kumar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State and the State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 48, 48B—Transfer of land to original owners in certain cases—Writ of mandamus to reconvey the property —Claim to grant—A notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in 1975 followed by a declaration u/s 6 of the Act, followed by an award—Request made by writ petitioners for denotifying or excluding the lands from acquisition alleging that valuable lands of petitioners were kept idle and for 21 years no progress had been made—Petitioners request rejected by the Government—Possession of lands had been taken and made over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board—Writ petitions filed for re-conveyance of land—Division Bench directed State to re-convey the concerned lands to writ petitioners—Specific stand of State Housing Board that necessary plans have been prepared as the Scheme was very much in operation—Whether any right to relief has been established by writ petitioners—(No).

       Held : On the facts pleaded it is doubtful whether the Government can withdraw from the acquisition, since the case of the State and the Housing Board is that possession has been taken and plans finalised to fulfil the purpose for which the acquisition was made. There is no plea in the writ petition that a request for re-conveyance was made in terms of Section 48B of the Act as amended in the State of Tamil Nadu.(Para 7)

       In the grounds in the writ petition it is only asserted that the writ petitioners are in possession in spite of the acquisition. There is no ground based on Section 48B of the Act though the prayer, as noticed earlier is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to reconvey the property.It is proper to notice that no foundation had been laid for seeking such a relief. There is no plea of demand, no plea of refusal and no plea of a duty in the State to re-convey.(Para 7)

       If the request of the writ petitioners for re-conveyance in terms of Section 48B of the Act stood rejected as apparently conceded by them before learned single judge, one finds it difficult to see how a second direction can be issued even in the absence of a challenge in the writ petition to the order of rejection and without examining the reasons contained therein. That order was also binding on the writ petitioners, so long as it was not got rid of. The order rejecting the request had become final and in a sense, it was not open to the learned single judge to issue the direction to consider an identical representation all over again. The Division Bench went one step further, we regret to say, without a proper consideration of the relevant aspects. The Division Bench apparently, even without giving the Tamil Nadu Housing Board an opportunity of being heard, proceeded at the stage of admission itself to direct re-conveyance of the lands to the writ petitioners, whether it be on the first date of hearing itself or on the subsequent date as contended by learned counsel for the contesting respondents. If the Division Bench felt that there was a case to be looked into, it should have admitted the writ appeal, issued rule nisi to the parties and thereafter heard the matter and disposed it of in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act, the law bearing on the subject and the facts obtaining. Even when the Division Bench got an opportunity to correct itself on being approached by way of review, it did not utilise that opportunity. (Para 8)

       We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value.(Para 11)