Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2546
2012 (2) CWC 52
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
K. Duraisingam
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.25961 of 2011
Decided on: 20-06-2012
For the Petitioner:R1, P. Venkatraman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Shri Jayanthi, Spl. Govt. Pleader Assisted by S. Navaneethan, AGP. R2, R. Jayaseelan, Advocate.
The State Government has no power to reconvey acquired land to a petitioner under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act if the land already stands vested in another entity and is required for public use. Additionally, a petitioner lacks locus standi to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the petitioner purchased the land after the passing of the award.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Exemption/Reconveyance - Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and its interpretation in light of the petitioner's representation for exemption/reconveyance of land. The court also referred to G.O.Ms.No.254 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 06.10.2003, which approved the proposal for constitution of a committee to identify properties for proper development and retain only such properties, dispose of properties not required, and release undeveloped properties locked in litigation. The court highlighted the limitations of Section 48-B and emphasized the need for strict compliance with its terms. The court also cited previous judgments to support its decision. The judgment emphasized that the State Government has no power to reconvey the land to the petitioner as the acquired land already stands vested in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and is still required for public use. The petitioner, having purchased the land after the passing of the award, lacks locus standi to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought exemption/reconveyance of land acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu for a housing project. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings, citing non-utilization of the acquired land and delay in project implementation. The State Government formed a committee to consider reconveyance of undeveloped land. The petitioner's representation for exemption/reconveyance was opposed by the respondents, citing the requirement of the land for the housing scheme and the petitioner's lack of locus standi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government has no power to reconvey the land to the petitioner as the acquired land already stands vested in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and is still required for public use. The petitioner, having purchased the land after the passing of the award, lacks locus standi to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for exemption/reconveyance of acquired land, the State Government's power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, and the petitioner's locus standi to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and the need for strict compliance with its terms. The court also highlighted the petitioner's lack of locus standi due to purchasing the land after the passing of the award.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for exemption/reconveyance of land.
1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the State of Tamil Nadu to consider the representation dated 20.09.2011 in accordance with Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and grant exemption / reconveyance of land situated in Survey No.344/3
(0.14 cents), Survey No.344/5 (0.27 cents) and in Survey No.337/7B (0.33 cents) in all measuring 0.74 cents in Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the owner of land in S.No.337/7B measuring acre 0.33 cents at Sholiganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai. The petitioner subsequently, purchased lands falling in S.No.344/3, 344/5 measuring 0.14 and 0.27 cents respectively, vide sale deed dated 29.12.2006. The land was said to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purposes of Sholinganallur Neighborhood, to be implemented through the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to land belonging to petitioner and other owners was issued on 03.05.1990 and after considering objections filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 21.06.1991.
4. The petitioner challenged the Acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.15410 of 1993 in this Court. The petitioner failed in his challenge to the acquisition proceedings and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5372 of 2008, filed against the judgment of this Court upholding the acquisition.
5. It is submitted, that neither the petitioner nor the vendor of petitioner have received any compensation for the acquired land. It is pleaded by petitioner, that the land in Sholinganallur Village, was acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1991 for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for implementation of the project, which was to be implemented in three phases, i.e. Phase 1, 2 and 3. Several land owners had voluntarily surrendered their vacant land for implementation of the Phase-3 of the project. However, with respect to Phase 1 and 2, the lands being patta lands and many owners having put up their houses, the land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings, but failed in their attempt.
6. The submission of petition is that even after more than 20 years, the Housing Board has not chosen to make any development on the acquired land and furthermore, the Neighborhood Scheme launched by the Housing Board has never been implemented properly, as part of the acquired land was kept unutilized and was not developed, which resulted in representation by the owners of land for exemption / reconveyance.
7. The State of Tamil Nadu thereafter formed a committee for the purpose of effective utilization of land, lying undeveloped in possession of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and also thought of framing a policy for reconveyance of land, which was neither utilized nor was likely to be utilized.
8. According to petitioner, several extent of lands in Sholinganallur Village fell in the category of waste land, which was not being utilized by the Housing Board.
9. It is pleaded that many owners of adjacent land had approached the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for reconveyance of acquired land and that number of writ petitions were also filed in this Court for direction to consider their applications under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. Some of the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to consider the representation filed by the land owners. In W.P.Nos.38302 to 38304 of 2003, this Court issued a direction in the light of G.O.Ms.No.254 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 06.10.2003 and permitted the petitioners to make representation to the committee constituted by the State Government to recommend withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.
10. The committee constituted by the State Governments submitted its report, which is said
