Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2688
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
S. Ramachandran, represented by its Power agent Swaminathan
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition No. 16380 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 28-06-2012
For the Petitioner:K.S. Viswanathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. V.M. Velumani, Special Government Pleader.
Reconveyance of acquired lands under Act 31 of 1978 is not permissible and is barred by the special enactment.
Headnote:
Reconveyance - Land Acquisition - Act 31 of 1978 - Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act - 31 of 1978 - Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act - Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Godrej and boyce, 1988(1) SCC 50 - Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 - Reconveyance barred by special enactment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reconveyance of acquired lands under Act 31 of 1978, which was rejected by the Government. The court held that reconveyance is not provided for under Act 31 of 1978 and is barred by the special enactment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order under challenge is in accordance with the law and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order. The relief sought for reconveyance cannot be granted.
Issues: The main issue was whether reconveyance of the acquired lands under Act 31 of 1978 is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reconveyance is not provided for under Act 31 of 1978 and is barred by the special enactment. The court also referred to Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, along with the decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Godrej and boyce, 1988(1) SCC 50, to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking reconveyance was dismissed and the court held that the relief sought for is contrary to the law and cannot be granted.
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the Government Letter bearing No.21215/Ni-a1/2008-11 dated 3.8.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-conveyance of acquired lands at Survey Nos.166/1A, 166/2A, 166/3A, 166/4, 166/1B, 166/2B, 166/3B of Gopalsamudaram Village, Ambasamudaram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. Ms. V.M Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The lands subject matter of which present writ petition has been filed, has been acquired under the Act 31 of 1978. Petitioner seeks reconveyance of the lands on the ground that the acquired lands have not been utilised for long number of years and the request for reconveyance has been rejected by the order of the Government stating that the lands have been acquired and handed over to the beneficiaries. Assuming for the movement, the petitioner's plea of non user is taken on face value, The Act 31 of 78 does not provide for reconveyance of the land under any circumstances. This is in contrast with the provisions of the Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court has taken a consistent view that the provisions of the Section 48-B of the Act will not be applicable to the land acquired under Act 31 of 1978. In W.P.No.34140 of 2005 (Panayamma and three others – vs. - The Government of Tamil Nadu and two others), this Court by order dated 22.12.2009 held that the Special enactment bars reconveyance of the land. The relevant portion reads as follows:-
"7. ....... Reconveyance as contemplated under section 48-B of the Central Act cannot be read into or made applicable to Act 31 of 1978. In this regard, I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mr. Justice Paul Vasanthkumar in the case of R. Ananthakrishnan and others VS The Secretary, State of Tamil nadu, Adi Drvidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai and three others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 447, wherein, in paragraph 12 it has been held as follows:
"Act 31 of 1978 being a special enactment and admittedly there is no provision for dropping the notification already issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it has to be ascertained whether the respondents have any right to issue withdrawal notification for any reason. Even though the power of reconveyance is vested under the Central Act and after vesting of the land with the Government free from all encumbrances, whether it can be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner as a matter of right, was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Govt. of A.P. VS Syed Akbar 2004(5) CTC 506: 2005(1) SCC 558 and in paragraphs 10 and 14 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"10. It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In state of Kerala VS M. Bhaskaran pillai para 4 of the said judgment reads:
"4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the ers
