Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3846
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
C. Jayakumar @ C.Kumar
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department Chennai & Others
W.P.No.44468 of 2006 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006
Decided On :09-02-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Raghupathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P.S.Raman, A.G. Assisted by R. Neelakantan,G.A. R2, A. Vijayakumar, R3, K. Elango, R4, I. Paranthaman, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reconveyance of acquired land can only be sought through the exercise of power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, and strict compliance with its terms is insisted upon.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Reconveyance - Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act - 1894 - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 48(B)] - [The court discussed the provisions of Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the reconveyance of acquired land can only be done if it is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose. The court also highlighted that once the land is acquired, even the State cannot withdraw from the acquisition after the purpose of the acquisition is completed. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order passed by the respondent State and requested the re-conveyance of the land. The Government rejected the request citing that the land had been earmarked as a park site and gifted to the local body for maintenance as a park.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the land as it had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and entrusted to the requisitioning body. The court emphasized that reconveyance could only be sought through the exercise of power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reconveyance of acquired land can only be done if it is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose. The court also emphasized that once the land is acquired, even the State cannot withdraw from the acquisition after the purpose of the acquisition is completed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the land.
Heard both sides.
2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the respondent State and after quashing the same, direct them to re-convey the land to the petitioner comprised in S.No.331/12, Mogappair Village to the extent of 80 cents now remaining unutilised.
3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that the request for reconveyance was examined in detail in consultation with the requisitioning body, viz. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it was rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed W.P.No.5657 of 2005 against the order of the Government rejecting his request. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.08.2005. The petitioner once again filed W.P.No.24431 of 2005 with the same request. This Court by an order dated 29.07.2005 had directed the respondents to re-convey the land, if the same is not required by the Government. Thereafter, the Government had informed the petitioner that when the earlier case in W.P.No.5657 of 2005 was already pending, the attempt by the petitioner to file another writ petition seeking for a direction is nothing but abuse of process of law.
4. In the order dated 29.07.2005, in W.P.No.24431 of 2005, this Court in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 observed as follows:-
"2. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to letter No.19894/LA.I(1)/2003-13 dated 07.02.2005 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to re-convey the land situated in S.No.331/2 of Mogappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, measuring an extent of one acre to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the lands are not required, the writ petition can be allowed and the prayer can be granted in favour of the petitioner by directing the authority to re-convey the same as per the provisions of Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Recording the above statement, the authorities are directed to re-convey the land, which is the subject matter in the writ petition, to the petitioner, if the same is not required by the respondent."
5. It is pursuant to this direction, the case of the petitioner was once again examined. In paragraphs 4 of the impugned order dated 05.09.2005, the petitioner was informed as follows:-
"4. Regarding the direction issued in the judgment second cited, I am to point out that the lands acquired have been earmarked as a park site in the approved lay out and the same has been gifted to the Villivakkam Panchayat Union for maintenance as park. In this connection, I am to state that as per the Development Control Rules framed under the Tamil nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, if the area of the total layout in excess of such 3000 sq.mtrs 10% of the area of the total layout in excess of such 3000 sq.mts. should be left as open space reserved area and handed over to the local body concerned by means of a gift deed for the purpose of maintaining it as a park for the use by the residents living in the said layout area and also other general public. By virtue of the above statutory provision only, the land to an extent of 1.30 acres had been duly gifted to the local body concerned (Villivakkam) for its maintenance as a public park. The fact that it is a park site duly vested with the Villivakkam Panchayat Union is apparently not known to you. Since, the Villivakkam Panchayat Union had kept the site as it is without taking steps to convert it as a park, you have been under the impression that the said land is still kept vacant and not required by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Government consider that this perception made you to approach the Court to obtain the judgments second cited. Since, neither the Government nor the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are the owners of this particular piece of land now the reconveyance of the same would never arise.
4. In this circumstances stat
