SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. D. Dinakaran, R. Regupathi, JJ.
Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, Chennai
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai and Others
W.P. No. 10475 of 2007
Decided On : 20th March, 2008

Advocates Appeared:
R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel for K. Ravichandra Babu, for Petitioner
G. Masilamand, Advocate General assisted by K. Chelladurai and M. Girirajan, for Respondent No. 2, Raja Kalifulla Government Pleader for Resopondent Nos. 1 and 3

Lands belonging to Public Trust and exclusively for the use of charitable purposes school not be required.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 48—prayer for reconveyance of the land acquired to original owner—land was not acquired for the purpose it was to be acquired—reasons given for not accepting reconveyance of land not sustainable—writ petition allowed.

       

ORDER

P. D. DINAKARAN, J.

By virtue of the order of this Court dated 20.3.2008 made in W.P. No. 10475 of 2007, the entire land, viz., 103 grounds 0796 sq.ft situated in Survey Nos.2930/1, 2930/2, 2931 and 2932/1 of Purasawalkam Village of Madras District, which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 10475 of 2007 as well as 287 grounds 2208 sq.ft. situated at Medawalkam, now vests with the AGOT.

2. In our earlier order dated 12.3.2008, we permitted the AGOT to explore the possibility of getting financial assistance from the State Government or the Central Government or from similar public trusts, such as TATA Trust and BIRLA Trust to achieve the object of C. Kandasamy Trust. But, now it is clarified that the TATA Trust and BIRLA Trust are not public trusts. If that be so, we make it clear that there is no necessity for AGOT to contact such private trusts or public trusts. The AGOT is permitted to get financial assistance only from the State or Central Government only.

3. Since we have permitted AGOT to approach the State Government, who were also willing to float a non-profit making company under Section 25 of the Companies Act for utilisation of the entire land, we expect the Government to take appropriate decision on the said proposal within two weeks and apprise this Court for further directions.

4. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Advocate General appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government shall make use of their good offices to convince the Government and report the developments the power conferred under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act be exercised by the Government only suo- motu. Hence, the power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act could also be invoked by this Court at the instance of any request by the owner of land if the land is not used for the purpose it was acquired or for any other purpose.

15. On the other hand, in the instant case, this Court, by order dated 18.11.2005 made in W.P. No. 37212 of 2005 directed the Government to consider the representation of the AGOT dated 12.8.2005 made under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and dispose of the same on merits. The said order has become final and remains unchallenged. Once the order dated 18.11.2005 made in W.P. No. 37212 of 2005 has become final, the Government has to consider the request of the AGOT for re-conveyance within the parameters prescribed under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, referred to above.

15.1 However, in the case on hand, with regard to the first parameter, referred to above, the facts remain that the Government had not spelled out any subjective satisfaction as to whether the land acquired is still required or not for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose; and moreover all the seven reasons for rejection of the request for re-conveyance, referred to supra, which are weighed by the Government in the impugned proceedings revolve only on the right of the AGOT over the impugned land, which got concluded as early as on 5.10.1948, when an order of probate was granted by this Court in O.P. No. 278 of 1948, probating the Will dated 21.5.1948, by virtue of which the impugned lands vest with the AGOT, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P. Alwar Chetty v. P. Chidambara Mudali and 6 Others P. Alwar Chetty v. P. Chidambara Mudali and 6 Others P. Alwar Chetty v. P. Chidambara Mudali and 6 Others (supra). Qua the second parameter, referred to above, that the amount paid to the owner should be repaid to the Government, admittedly, the AGOT, even though are vested with the impugned lands, are not paid even a pie all these years and the entire amount was deposited with the City Civil Court and then transferred to the Reserve Bank of India, as evident from the impugned proceedings and the AGOT is also not claiming any right over the same, and therefore, the question whether the AGOT is willing to repay the a

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top