Once the land is transferred and vested with the Housing Board, it is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, and the Government cannot exercise the power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act when the land vests with the Housing Board.

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in letter No.37215/LA III-2/2001-13 dated 24.8.2004, quash the same and directing the first respondent to reconvey the lands an extent of 0.74.0 in S.F. No.838/5, an extent of 0.21.0, 0.30.0, 0.19.5, 0.32.0, 0.18.0, 0.25.5 in S.F. Nos.849/1B,2B,1C, 2C, 1D, 2D respectively, an extent of 0.01.0, 0.09.5, 0.22.0, 0.13.5, 0.15.0 in S.F. Nos.850/2C. 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G respectively, the lands in S.F. No. 850/3 and an extent of 0.76.0 hectares of land in S.No. 839/2C situated in Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.)

Under the impugned order, the Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for reconveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would attack the order on the following grounds:

“The property acquired and transferred to the Housing Board remains unutilised for a long number of years and therefore it must be held that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired no longer subsists. If that is so, the land owners have a right to have the lands reconveyed. When the lands, which were acquired is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, then the Government has a right of forfeiture under Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore reading Sections 16-B and Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (both amended by the State of Tamil Nadu) this Court has to necessarily hold, on the facts available in the order impugned, that the land owners are entitled to reconveyance.”

Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the Government will get jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act only when the land in respect of which, it has to exercise the power, vests with the Government and secondly it must be satisfied that the land is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired. In this case, according to the learned Additional Advocate General and it is an admitted fact, that the land vests with the Housing Board. It is a statutory vesting under Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Once such vesting is there, then the land so vested with the Housing Board is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, which is a self contained Act defining the powers of the Housing Board to deal with the property so vesting with them. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that under Section 16-B of the Act, power is available to the Government to forfeit when it finds that the land acquired is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired and assuming that the Government can exercise that power – which is not available in this case – then such an exercise of power will result in the lands vesting in the Revenue Department and not on the land owners. Learned Additional Advocate General brings to my notice a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (5) C.T.C. 506 (Government Of Andhra Pradesh V. Syed Akbar) to contend that the Government is at liberty to use the land for any other public purpose other than the public purpose for which it was originally acquired.

2. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, I went through the relevant provisions of law. Before that, I want to apply my mind to the order challenged in this writ petition. The order shows that the lands acquired have been transferred to the Housing Board; there is an approved lay out in D.T. And C.P vide proceeding in ref.No.313 of 1999; the lands are in possession of the Housing Board and on account of several litigations f