The central legal point established in the judgment is that the government has an obligation to act with fairness and consistency in considering representations for withdrawal from acquisition, and discriminatory actions by the government are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

M.Y. Eqbal, C.J.

1. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petitions being W.P. Nos. 16274 of 2008 and 15694 of 2008 for quashing the orders of the first Respondent dated 16.09.2005 and 03.11.2005 rejecting his representation for release of the land under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and to direct the Respondent to re-convey the land in Survey No.251/2 measuring an extent of 1 Acre 38.5 Cents at Padi Village, Ambattur and to execute re-conveyance deed.

2. It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu, by Notification dated 12.11.1975, initiated Land Acquisition proceedings followed by declaration dated 26.01.1976 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The awards were passed in respect of Survey Nos.251/1 and 251/2 in the year 1983 and 1984 respectively.

3. The Appellant’s case was that, initially the Tamil Nadu Housing Board wanted to acquire the land of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner and others for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The land was required for implementation of the Housing Scheme as well as for the formation of the railway line, and the railway road called Inner Circular Road. The Appellant filed representation to the Government requesting to release his land and to re-convey the same to him on the ground that the land could not be developed either for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme or for railway project. Appellant-Writ Petitioner alleged that the Inner Circular Road is no longer required in view of the abandonment of the Neighbourhood Scheme. The contention of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner was that about 33 years passed away from the date of Notification, but the Housing Board did not proceed an inch of its object. It was alleged that in certain areas, the Government, even after initial rejection of representations of the land owners for re-conveyance of the land under Section 48-B, and after resubmitting the same once again by the landowners, the lands have been re-conveyed in their favour. It was contended by the Appellant-Writ Petitioner that the authorities have acted discriminately and adopted colourable exercise of their powers inasmuch as taking decision for reconveyance in favour of some of the landowners and rejecting the same in respect of the other landowners.

4. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No.38821 of 2003 which was disposed off on 31.12.2003 directing the Appellant-Writ Petitioner to make representation to the proper authorities. Accordingly, the Appellant-Writ Petitioner made representation to the Government. That time, the Government informed the Appellant-Writ Petitioner that there is a proposal for the usage of the land for railway project for the Inner Circular Road. In another Writ Petition being W.P. No.39402 of 2002, which was disposed off on 17.09.2003, this Court directed the Appellant-Writ Petitioner to make representation under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a representation was filed by the Appellant-Writ Petitioner for re-conveyance of the land, but the same was rejected stating that the land cannot be re-conveyed. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner further alleged that the Survey No.224/1 which was the subject matter in the earlier Writ Petitions viz., W.P. Nos.38820/2003 to 38822/2003, which was earlier rejected, has been allowed and re-conveyance orders have been passed under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of other land owners.

5. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent-Housing Board it was stated that the land in question was reserved for Inner Circular Road for rail alignment, which was dropped in the year 2006, and subsequently, it was decided to construct a Hostel for working women and a Home for Senior Citizens as per the Board’s Resolution No.5.04 dated 27.06.2008, and the land in question is required for the purpose of the scheme to be executed by the Housing Board.

6. Learned Single Judge after discussing various judgments