Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1244
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M. Sangameswaran
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Se
W.P.No.2964 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 and W.P.No.2965 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 11-04-2008
For the Petitioner:N. Damodaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, M.R. Jothimanian, Government Advocate, R2, R. Girirajan, Standing Counsel.
The landowner has the right to consider their request for reconveyance under Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on merits.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Reconveyance - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48B - The court considered the right of the landowner to claim reconveyance of the acquired lands under Section 16-B and Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the landowner has the right to consider their request for reconveyance under Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought reconveyance of their lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the lands were not utilized for the intended purpose. The first respondent rejected the request based on the objection raised by the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent did not consider whether the Housing Board's right over the property can be forfeited due to non-utilization of the lands under section 16-B of the Act. The court directed the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioners as per their representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had the right to claim reconveyance of the acquired lands under Section 16-B and Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landowner has the right to consider their request for reconveyance under Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on merits.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within three months from the date of receipt of the court's order. The writ petitions were ordered on the above terms with no costs.
Prayer in W.P.No.2965/2008: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter No.26644/Ni.A.3(2), dated 112. 2006 and signed on 212. 2007 and issued by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009, the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-convey and re-transfer the lands comprised in S.Nos.151/1B (0.07.0 H), 151/1C (0.49.0 H), 151/3B (0.01.0 H) totally in an extent of Hectares 0.57.0 ares at No.13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, under section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended therein in favour of the petitioner and within such time as may be prescribed by this Court.)
By consent of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. Prayer in the writ petitions are to quash the orders dated 112. 2006 and 112. 2006 respectively, passed by the first respondent and direct the respondents to reconvey and retransfer their respective lands at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, under section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended, in favour of the petitioners concerned.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they were the owners of the lands comprised in S.Nos.151/1B (0.07.0 H), 151/1D (0.41.0 H), 151/3B (0.01.0 H), 151/3C (0.00.5 H) and S.Nos.151/1B (0.07.0 H), 151/1C (0.49.0 H), 151/3B (0.01.0 H) respectively, at No.13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, and they got the said properties through registered family partition deed dated 16. 1981. The said lands along with other lands belonging to other parties were acquired by the first respondent at the instance of the second respondent for Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme and notification was also issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Housing Scheme, Coimbatore, passed an award, pursuant to which petitioners also received compensation amount for the said acquired lands in January, 2000.
4. Number of other land owners of the very same neighbourhood Scheme challenged the land acquisition proceedings before this Court and insofar as they were concerned, the acquisitions were quashed and with regard to some of the adjacent lands situated in the very same scheme, first respondent issued necessary notification for withdrawal of the proceedings. According to the petitioners, because of that development, the second respondent is not in a position to utilise the said lands as it was not feasible for the Board to implement the scheme and the second respondent also not utilised the lands acquired from the petitioners and kept the same idle. Therefore, the petitioners applied for restoration of the above said lands to them by submitting representation on 19. 2004 stating that they are willing to return back the compensation amount received from the respondents. Since no action was taken, petitioner sent a further representation by registered post to the Divisional Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, on 9. 2004 and also to the first respondent herein and sought for reconveyance of the above said lands in their favour. Though the first respondent acknowledged the same on 19. 2006, no order was passed and the petitioner filed W.P.No.3059 of 2007 praying for early disposal of their representations. This Court by order dated 2. 2007 directed the first respondent to dispose of the representations of the petitioners dated 9. 2006 within three months and the petitioners were also permitted to raise additional grounds. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner raised additional grounds in the form of representation dated 13. 2007, stating that the surrounding owners of the said lands have already got approval from the competent authority and they sold the plots to
