Judgment :-

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. These appeals by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, `the Board) are directed against judgment dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.796 and 1135 of 1999 whereby the appellant-Board has been directed to reconvey the acquired land on which no construction has been made to the respondents on their depositing the amount of compensation together with interest at the rate of 9%.

2. The land of the respondents falling in Survey Nos.340, 341 and 343, Mogappair Village, Sedapet Taluk formed part of 513.52 acres acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Ambattur Neighborhood Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act) was issued on 23.10.1975 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 2.11.1978. After finalization of the acquisition proceedings, the respondents were paid compensation in lieu of their land.

3. Some of the land owners including A.S. Naidu challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 leaving the preliminary notification intact. Dissatisfied with the High Courts order, A.S. Naidu and others filed S.L.P. (C) Nos.11353-11355 of 1988. During the pendency of the special leave petitions, the Act was amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act No.16 of 1997 in terms of which declaration under Section 6 was required to be published within 3 years from the date of preliminary notification. This Court took notice of the amendment made by the State legislature and held that in view of the High Courts order, such publication cannot now be made and proceeded to quash the acquisition with liberty to the State Government to issue fresh preliminary notification.

4. L. Chandrasekaran (respondent in Civil Appeal No.3148/2002) who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings filed a writ petition sometime in the year 1997 for issue of a direction to the appellant-Board to certify that the acquired land was no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioner is entitled to get no objection certificate. Writ Appeal No.9/1998 preferred by the appellant-Board was disposed of by the Division Bench along with Writ Appeal Nos.676/1997 and 8/1998. The Division Bench observed that the order passed in A.S. Naidus case was in respect of the petitioner of that case only and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to make representation for reconveyance of the acquired land in accordance with Section 48-B of the Act. Paragraphs 3, 7 to 9 and 11 of judgment dated 22.9.1998 of the Division Bench, which have bearing on the decision of these appeals, read as under:-

"3. Few land owners preferred writ petitions challenging the acquisition and a Division Bench of the court quashed the declaration u/s.6(1) of the Act on 8.1.1988 in respect of the those writ petitioners inter alia holding that Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules having not been complied with and the second provision of Section 6 (1) of the Act having not been complied with in issuing the declaration u/s.6 of the Act. One of the Writ Petitioners alone moved the Supreme Court as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act alone had been quashed and the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act has been retained as per the judgment of the Division Bench. The Honble Supreme Court finding that no declaration could be issued as on the date of the order as the period stipulated under Section 6 of the Act having elapsed allowed the special leave petition and quashed the acquisition in respect of that petitioner alone. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was also quashed.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant pointed but that the object of the acquisition was rehabilitation of the roofless