The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the Government under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, the conditions stipulated for reconveyance, and the requirement for fairness and reasonableness in the exercise of such discretion.

The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 110. 2009 under which the first respondent, relying upon the letter of the second respondent dated 19. 2009, has rejected the claim of the petitioners made under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity, "the Act") for reconveyance of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 14/1A, 14/1B and 15/1 in Vellakinar Village, Coimbatore District.

2. The factum of acquisition of the said lands along with various other lands by the Government for the benefit of the second respondent is not in dispute. It is stated that the award was passed in respect of these lands on 29. 1998 in Award No.4 of 1998 and it is the case of the second respondent that possession has been taken on 30.10.1998. It is the case of the petitioners, who are the owners of the above lands which were acquired along with larger extent of properties in the adjacent survey numbers, that the lands acquired, including that of the petitioners, are not used for the purpose for which it was acquired and according to the petitioners, even though various issues are raised about the legality or otherwise of the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of Act, the lands have been kept vacant for many years.

.3. In the application filed by the petitioners under Section 48-B of the Act requesting for reconveyance of agricultural lands measuring an extent of 83. 0 Hectares, the petitioners have specifically stated that many of the adjacent lands comprised in various survey numbers have been deleted from the land acquisition proceedings and restored to the land owners. The specific plea taken by the petitioners in the said application in this regard is as follows:

."We also have come to know that the following lands adjacent to our lands namely, Survey Nos.10/1, 10/2, 15/2, 60, 61, 62/1, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67/1, 68/1, 69/1, 2, 72, 73, 74, 75, 37, 38, 39, 90, 91, 92 and 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 in Vellakkinaru Village, Coimbatore District have been deleted from the land acquisition proceedings and those lands were restored to the landowners."

4. In respect of survey Nos.10/1 and 10/2, which were also subject matter of acquisition along with the present lands, it is seen that the land owners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18195 of 1998 and this Court, by order dated 211. 2006, while allowing the writ petition, has quashed the land acquisition proceedings. However, it is the case of the learned counsel for the second respondent that against the said order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal has been filed and admittedly, there is no interim order.

5. Again, in respect of another adjacent land comprised in Survey No.15/2, the owners have filed W.P.No.18272 of 1998 and this Court, by order dated 13. 2008, has quashed the acquisition proceedings on various grounds, including that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in the name of a dead person. It is stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that as against the said order also an appeal has been filed with a condone delay petition and the same is pending at that stage.

6. Mr.D.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this Court other orders stated to have been passed relating to the same project wherein the land acquisition proceedings have been set aside by this Court. It is also seen that in respect of Survey Nos.3/1A, 3/1C, 4/2B1, 4/2B2, 4/3C1 and 4/3C2 which also form part of the same stretch of land, on the owners filing a writ petition in W.P.No.18322 of 2008, this Court, by order dated 14. 2009, has quashed the land acquisition proceedings.

.7. However, under the impugned order passed by the first respondent, which is stated to be on the basis of a communication from the second respondent for whose purpose the lands were acquired, the first respondent has not considered the said aspect raised by the petitio