Ratios:
a. When Housing Board failed to utilise the acquired land for the project, as a penalty, the Government can forfeit the land and dispose it as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
b. Power of forfeiture of the Government is an independent power.
c. When the acquired lands are not utilized for the project, there is no automatic reconveyance to the previous owner. Government has to explore alternative option for its utilization and if not possible, it is to be sold by public auction. When it is not possible, land could be reconveyed.

D. MURUGESAN J.

The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 796 of 2008 is at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 378 of 2009 is at the instance of State. Both the writ appeals question the common order dated 24. 2008 made in the writ petition in W.P.No. 5316 of 2006. By that order the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders therein and the Government was directed to exclude the lands in survey numbers in question from the acquisition proceedings and reconvey the same in favour of the petitioners.

2. The controversy in the writ appeals arises under the following circumstances:-

An extent of 43.19 acres of land in S.No.46/2 etc., in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for housing scheme. After considering the objection raised in 5A enquiry, a declaration was made and ultimately the acquisition proceedings culminated into one of an award and possession of land was taken over and the same was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for implementing the scheme. The respondents earlier approached this court in W.P.No. 6453 of 1991 questioning the acquisition proceedings and the writ petition came to be allowed. However, the appeal preferred at the instance of the State came to be allowed on 12. 1996. Hence, the acquisition proceedings became final. No materials are placed before us that the order in the writ appeal was questioned by way of further appeal. Thereafter, the respondents approached the Government with a request to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as their lands are concerned. That request was rejected on 14. 2000. It was again questioned by the respondents in W.P.No.8512 of 2000. This court while setting aside the said order remitted back the matter to the Government for fresh consideration. The respondents again approached this court by yet another writ petition in W.P.No.22200 of 2004 seeking for reconveyance of the lands. By order dated 19. 2004, this court again directed the Government to consider their representations made in this behalf. By order dated 18. 2005, the Government rejected the request for reconveyance on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had informed the Government that the lands would be dealt with in terms of Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board did not give any consent for reconveyance. The respondents again made another representation, which was also rejected by the Government on 10. 2005. Both the orders were put in issue before this court and by the order under challenge in the writ appeal the learned Judge after setting aside the impugned orders had allowed the writ petition as stated earlier. Both the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board have come up by way of present writ appeals.

3. We have heard Mr.Rajakalifullah, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Veerasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The questions that arise for our consideration are as follows:-

.(i) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are entitled for reconveyance of the land especially when the Government had not so far forfeited the lands in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16B of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act to the Land Acquisition Act and

.(ii) Whether the reasons adduced by the Government in the impugned orders are justifiable ?

5. Point No.1. The Land Acquisition Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act ) of 1996 (Act XVI of 1997) was enacted by inserting Sections 16A and Section 16B. By the same Amendment Act Section 48-B was also introduced. Both the provisions read as under:- Section 16-B Land to be forfeited in certain cases-Where the Government are s