Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3809
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Jeya @ M. Jeyalakshmi & Another
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development & Others
W.P. Nos. 6785 & 11023 of 2006 & W.P. M.P. Nos. 7355 & 12540 of 2006
Decided On : 31-08-2010
For the Petitioners:T.R. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - M. Dhandapani, Spl.G.P, R6 - G. Thyagarajan, R8 - R. Vijayan, Advocates.
The central legal point established is that reconveyance of acquired lands should be made only to the erstwhile owners and not to any one else, as per Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Reconveyance - Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act - S. 48-B - Summary: The court directed the State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners for reconveyance of acquired lands, as per Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reconveyance of lands acquired by the State Government for a public purpose, claiming that the lands were unutilized and reconveyed to unauthorized persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that reconveyance was made in the name of deceased persons or unauthorized power of attorney holders, and directed the State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners for reconveyance in accordance with law.
Issues: Validity of reconveyance, authority to reconvey, and consideration of representations by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: If acquired land is unutilized and not required for any public purpose, reconveyance should be made only to the erstwhile owners and not to any one else, as per Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed both writ petitions and directed the State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners for reconveyance within three months.
1. In W.P.No.6785 of 2006, the petitioner is the wife of one late P.Mannar. She filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent i.e. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider her representation dated 17.01.2006 to reconvey the lands situated in S.No.103/2 measuring to an extent of 0.26 acres at Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
2. The petitioner claims that she is the co-owner of the piece of land along with her husbands brother P.Valmurthy in S.No.103/2 measuring to the extent of 0.70 acres at Nolambur Village having purchased the same by a sale deed dated 14.11.1963 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The State Government (1st respondent) on a request being made by the second respondent acquired a larger extent of land including the petitioners land by a notification under Section 4(1) dated 11.12.1975. This was for the purpose of executing Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. After due procedure, the lands were acquired. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands were not used by the second respondent for which it was acquired and the lands have been kept unutilised for the past 31 years.
3. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 09.07.2004 to reconvey the unutilised lands by exercising power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act by filing a writ petition. This Court in W.P.No.6197/2005 directed the first respondent to consider her representation. The State Government by an order dated 06.10.2005 refused to order reconveyance of the lands on the ground that the same was reconveyed to the ex-owner Valmurthy after duly collecting development charges including interest charges for the belated payment. Therefore, the reconveyance having been effected by order dated 13.04.1994, there is no land left with either the State Government or with the Board for reconveyance of an extent of 0.35 acres in S.No.103/02.
4. It is claimed that her husband died on 08.04.1994 leaving her as the only legal heir and that having been the real owner, it was not clear as to how they could reconveyed the lands to her husbands brother P.Valmurthy. Subsequently, on her efforts, she was furnished with the copy of the order dated 13.04.1994 reconveying the lands. It was found that one Veeraraghavan and three others of Mettucheri, Nolamur Village requested the Government to exclude their lands measuring 6.16 acres in S.No.96/3 and after referring the matter to the Housing Board, they were informed that the land measuring an extent of 6.16 acres in S.No.96/3 etc was found belonging to one Veeraraghavan and three others including Valmurthy S/o Ponnan, Poochiammal w/o Elumalai and Chellammal w/o Periyasamy could be reconveyed to them and necessary charges may be collected from them. She also found that the lands were reconveyed to various owners by reconveyance deed dated 03.07.1998 registered as document No.896/98 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Konnur in favour M/s.Durai, Veeraraghavan, Veerammal and Annapushanam. Further, by the very same order dated 13.04.1994, the second respondent had reconveyed the lands to another owner by executing Reconveyance Deed on 09.10.1999 registered as Document No.894/99 in favour of Tmt.Chellammal w/o Vaithi.
5. It is the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent by another Reconveyance deed dated 19.05.1999 registered as Document No.2244/99 reconveyed the land in S.No.103/2 in favour of M/s. Valmurthy s/o Ponnan, Munnar s/o Ponnan (who is the late husband of the petitioner), Elumalai s/o Irusan, Sridhar s/o Manmadan, Chittibabu s/o Manmadan and Poonga d/o Manmadan without any of their signatures but a totally unconnected third person viz., A.Kandasamy as Power of Attorney holder. The deed was silent about how A.Kandasamy (third respondent herein) became the Power of Attorney from the land owners and whether he was having any registered power.
6. The petitioner alleged that her husband and her brothers
