1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was enacted with the object of providing for acquisition of the land by the Government for public purpose and the compensation payable in pursuance thereto to the land owners. The Government has a right to withdraw from the acquisition of land of which possession has not been taken, in view of Section 48(1) of the said Act. Thus, the land owner has no right in the land after acquisition is complete, and thus, de-notification is not legally possible.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 seeking to insert Section 48-B as under:-

“48-B. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases “Where the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section(1-A) and (2) of Section 23, if any paid under this Act”.

3. The aforesaid provision is, thus, in derogation from Section 48 (1) of the said Act and inasmuch as where the acquisition is complete, but the Government is satisfied that the land is not required for purposes for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner, who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under the Act, inclusive of the amount of interest under Section 23(1)(a) of the said Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the said Act. It is the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision, which is in question in the present writ petition.

4. In so far as the factual matrix is concerned, the petitioner has raised the issue of the acquisition of land made by Award No.4/1961 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Land in Survey No.22, Venkatapuram Village, Madras District for the purpose of construction of a Hostel and Building for Central Cooperative Institute, the direction issued on 02.01.2007 by this Court on a writ petition (W.P.No.49205 of 2006) filed by the then owners to consider the representation of the private respondents 5 to 9 dated 16.11.2006 under Section 48-B of the said Act, the rejection of such representation on 20.03.2007, quashing of the rejection letter vide order dated 10.09.2007 in W.P.No.26990 of 2007 with a direction to pass fresh orders, the first respondent issuing G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 17.03.2008 for construction of hostel for Co-operative Department as per the original purpose of acquisition and calling upon the Highways Department to vacate the existing building, the rejection of the request of respondents 5 to 9 by the first respondent to re-convey the land under Section 48-B of the said Act on 26.06.2008, respondents 5 to 9 seeking re-conveyance of the land vide W.P.No.19228 of 2008, the Government Departments allegedly filing tailor-made counter affidavits resulting in the writ petition being allowed on 27.08.2012, W.A.No.180 of 2013 being dismissed and the Special Leave Petition also thereafter receiving the same fate. Since this writ petition was in the nature of public interest litigation, it amounted to indirectly questioning the judicial orders already passed in the inter-se dispute between the land owners and the Government mainly on the plea that the Government had failed to place all the relevant facts before the Court, and also on the plea of fraud.

5. The stand of the Highways Department sought to be represented by the learned Government Pleader was that it was the Co-operative Department, which was unsuccessful before the Division Bench and in Review Petition, as also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while the Highways Department had independently preferred writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge. His submission thus was a