The main legal point established is that the right of a land owner to seek re-conveyance of unutilized land under Section 48-B is not automatic and should be considered and rejected on reasonable grounds, and exemption from acquisition and re-conveyance are matters of policy, not law.

An extent of 96.92 acres of land was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1096, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 17.7.78 for the formation of Besant Nagar Extension Phase-II Scheme. The proposed land was conveniently divided into five blocks. After the conduct of Section 5-A enquiry, Section 6 declaration was made and ultimately an award was passed. The land belonging to the respondents 1 to 11 in an extent of 0.77 acres registered in the name of one Thiru K.Munusamy was also notified and ultimately an award was passed in respect of the said land also. The possession of the land was also taken and was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.10.86 for the purpose of the proposed housing scheme. There is no dispute that the acquisition proceedings have become final.

2. We are concerned only with an extent of 0.77 acres in Survey No.87/1 belonging to the respondents 1 to 11. It appears that some of the lands acquired under the same scheme were re-conveyed on the applications being filed under Section 48-B of the Act. However, when a similar application was made by the respondents 1 to 11, the same was rejected by the order dated 13.12.2005. The said order was put in issue in the writ petition and the writ petition came to be disposed of after quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Government to consider the application filed by the respondents 1 to 11 and to pass orders after giving opportunity to them. That order came to be passed on the specific grievance of the respondents that except the land of the respondents, the other lands were re-conveyed to the respective land owners.

3. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

4. We have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant-Housing Board, Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8, Mr.K.Muthuramalingam, learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 11, Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader for the respondent no.12 and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel for the impleaded respondent no.13.

5. The writ appeal raises the following two issues:

(i) In an application under Section 48-B, whether the Government is bound to re-convey the unutilized land to the land owner as a matter of right or not?

(ii) Whether the exemption granted in favour of some of the land owners would automatically enure the other land owners as well to claim such benefit?

6. Point No.(i): As far as the right of a land owner to seek for re-conveyance of the unutilized land as a matter of right, we may usefully refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in R. Shanmugam and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others, 2006 (4) CTC 290. That was also a case where the acquisition was for the proposed construction of housing units by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The land remained unutilized for quite some years and an application under Section 48-B was made. While considering the right of a land owner, this Court, having regard to the introduction of Section 16-B by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1997 empowering the Government to re-possess the land from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the event of the land having remained unutilized, held that such a power could be exercised by the Government to re-possess the land from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and on such re-possession, the land shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Once the land vested in the Government, it has to be dealt with by the Government to explore the possibility of using the land for any public purpose at the first instance. In the event the Government is of the view that the land is not required for any other public purpose, thereafter, it has to be sold in public auction. Only