Strict compliance with the terms of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act is necessary for considering the reconveyance of acquired lands, and the plea of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for seeking a direction to withdraw from the acquisition of the land.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent, dated 30.10.2008 and seeks to set aside the same and for a further direction to reconvey the lands in Survey No.251/2 measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 38.5 cents at Padikuppam village in favour of the petitioners.

2. When the writ petition came up on 09.12.2010, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents privately. On such notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 31.3.2011 justifying the impugned order. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16269 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 10.7.2007 directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation, dated 25.2.2008 in accordance with law. Pursuant to that direction, the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned order, it was informed to the petitioners that Section 4(1) notification was issued by G.O.Ms.No.260, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.10.1975. Subsequently, by G.O.No.1078, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12.7.1978, an order under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed. Thereafter, awards in Award No.1 of 1983, dated 8.11.1983 and Award No.5 of 1984, dated 28.5.1984 in respect of S.Nos.251/1 and 251/2 were made. The lands were taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had proposed to construct a Hostel for working women and a Home for senior citizens vide its resolution No.5.04, dated 27.06.2008. Hence the Housing Board was consulted and they expressed their intention to retain the land.

3. The petitioners contended that several persons in Padi, Nolambur and Mogappair were given back their lands by reconveyance. Therefore, the petitioners' case should be considered. When a legal notice was sent to that effect, the Housing Board informed the counsel by a further letter dated 9.1.2009 intimating the reason given by the Government.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Division, dated 19.3.2011, it was contended that the lands were acquired and possession was taken on 28.5.1984. Though the proposed Inner Circular Corridor Rail Alignment was dropped, due to court cases further steps could not be taken. In any event, the land was suitable for a housing scheme and is essential for framing a scheme. Since the proposal for the Inner Circular Corridor Rail Alignment was dropped, the other schemes are being formulated by the Board.

5. The counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in several cases the Board had reconveyed the land, there must be uniformity in such matters. Once the original scheme was dropped, the petitioners are eligible for reconveyance as a matter of right or on the basis of equal treatment given to others.

6. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. A request in this regard has to be made only under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and it can be considered only in the light of the said enabling provision. Even if the scheme is not put to use for the purpose for which acquisition was made, it can be used for any other public purpose. Only when the requisitioning body returns the land to the Government and if the Government was of the opinion that it was not likely to be used for any other public purpose, the question of reconveyance of the land to the original owners will take place.

7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court before and after the introduction of Section 58-B. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and Ors reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 in paragraph 11 had observed as follows:-

"...Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether su