Right to property is only a constitutional right.

Per D. MURUGESAN, J.

These writ appeals raise the following points for our consideration:

1. Whether the Government have right to repossess the land acquired and transferred to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that remains unutilized by the Board for a long number of years in terms of Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

2. Whether the erstwhile land owners have vested right to seek for reconveyance of unutilised land under Section 48-B on expressing their willingness to repay the amount that was paid to them under the Act for acquisition of land, inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-sections (1-A) and (2) of Section 23, if any, paid under this Act, and the Government is obligated to accept the request as such?

2. The following are the few facts that led to the controversy before us:

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred shortly as “TNHB”) forwarded a proposal to the Government for acquiring an extent of 1997.02 acres of patta land for the Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme, Coimbatore. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Central Act”), were issued on various dates during the year 1991 in respect of 821.33 acres of land in different survey numbers. An extent of 1175.69 acres of land was not notified even as on today. After enquiry under Section 5-A, Section 6 declarations were made and awards were also passed in respect of 662.96 acres of land. An extent of 105.61 acres of land was taken over by the Government and handed over to ""Board"" and an extent of 21.47 acres of land alone was utilized for Housing Scheme. As large extent of lands were unutilized by the Housing Board, the owners of the land approached the Government under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ""The State Amendment Act"") seeking for reconveyance of the unutilized lands. Their common claim was that in the event, the lands acquired for construction of houses by the Board remain unutilized for quite long number of years, the Government shall have the power to take back the lands from the Board and reconvey the unutilised lands to the land owners. By the orders impugned in the writ petitions, their claim was rejected on the ground that awards were passed, compensation amounts were paid and the lands were still required for Housing Scheme. On a challenge to the orders of the Government more or less on the same ground, the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petitions, has held that there cannot be two vesting of the same land, one in the Government and another in Housing Board. The learned Judge has further held that in view of the specific provisions of Section 17-A, the claim for forfeiture of the land by the Government under Section 16-B of the Act is unsustainable.

3. We have heard the respective learned senior counsel on either side. Before embarking upon the issue, it is necessary to trace the history of TNHB Act and the object for which the Housing Board was constituted. For improvement of the City of Madras, the Board of Trustees was constituted under the Madras City Improvement Trust Act, 1950 and the Board of Trustees was in-charge of Housing, Land Development and general improvement of the City. Every project proposed by the Board must get sanction of the Government before it is executed. Basically, the powers of the Board are limited and only to formulate the project for land Development, Housing and General improvement within the City and there was no independent power entrusted with the Board for execution of other Housing Projects of the Government not framed under the said Act. For the purpose of implementing the Scheme by the Board of Trustees, the Government in exercise of power of Eminent Domain, acquired the land under the provisions of ""The Central Act"". Section 16 of the Central Act empowers the Collector to take possession of the land in respect of which award is passed under Section 11 of the Act. Once possession is t