The central legal point established in the judgment is that if the government or housing board does not implement a housing scheme for more than 15 to 20 years, the landowners are entitled to relief under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order, dated 08.03.2013, passed by the third respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to reconvey the petitioner's land, comprised in S.Nos.82/7 & 8 of Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk & District, measuring an extent of 0.87 Acres to the petitioner.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner submits that he is having own land comprised in Survey Nos.82/7 & 8, Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District. In the year 1981, the Tamil Nadu Government acquired his land to the extent of 0.87 Acres for the purpose of impleading the Housing Scheme i.e., construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and in this connection the Government issued a 4(1) notification vide G.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.06.1981, after that under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration was published vide G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 07.07.1984, but subsequently after a lapse of two years the award has been passed on 23.09.1986 in Award No.07 of 1986-1987.

3. Further, he submits that after acquisition of his land during 1981, the Housing Board not at all implemented any scheme for construction of houses in his land and till today he is in possession of the said land. Since he is an agriculturist, he is not fully aware the land acquisition proceedings as well as the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and after consulting law knowing persons he came to understand that he should ask for re-conveyance and he should made written representation under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act instead of sending written representation for exclusion of his land from Land Acquisition Proceedings.

4. The petitioner further submits that he came to understand that the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court were pleased to pass orders with regard to re-conveyance of the land to the original owners on the ground that if the Government or Housing Board is not implemented the housing scheme for more than 15 to 20 years, then the land owners can entitle to get the relief under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act specifically under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.

5.Further, he submits that the respondents may aware that this Court was pleased to pass an Order in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.422 of 2011 etc., dated 14.09.2011 with regard to re-conveyance of land, wherein it is observed that:

“It is seen that these batch of writ petitions are not the first set of cases, which were decided by this court, challenging the same acquisition proceedings. It appears that the first batch of writ petitions were filed during 1994, being W.P.No.12201 of 1994 etc., challenging the Section 4(1) notification, the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, dated 20.03.2001, by observing that it may not be proper for the State Government, to spent huge public money for the acquisition proceedings, to acquire the lands of the petitioners therein with superstructure and keep the land idle, if the scheme could not be successfully implemented. Therefore, this Court permitted the petitioners therein to approach the Government seeking exemption or reconveyance. Another batch of cases were filed during 1996 in W.P.Nos.9747 to 9749 of 1996, challenging the notification issued under Sec.4(1) and Section 6 of the Act and the notifications were set aside, with the further observation that the Government will take into account ground realities before proceeding with the acquisition. The other writ petition challenging the same acquisition proceedings in Dr.N.Natarajan vs. Government, TN was allowed and the notification was quashed. In Chinnayyagounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (2) MLJ 481, the challenge was to the same acquisition proceedings and the writ petition was allowed and the acquisition was quashed. While allowing