2015 Supreme(Mad) 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN & R.S. RAMANATHAN, JJ.
Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, Ambattur, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.A.Nos. 404, 870 & 1208 of 2014
Decided On : 21-05-2015

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act – Section 4, 6, 17, 23 – Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1996 – Section 48 – Re-conveyance – Writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein belong to Adi-Dravida Community. – One of the writ petitioners, viz., E. Krishnavenis father-in-law (since deceased), one Mr. A.Rathinam, son of Annamalai held an extent of 10.03 acres in Mugappair and Padi Village in different Survey Numbers. – There was a family partition among the family members with regard to the above mentioned properties and thereafter, the lands were acquired by the Government. – In Survey No.296/2, an extent of 1 acre and 52 cents stands in the name of the writ petitioners. – The said lands were also acquired by the Government vide 4(1) Notification issued on 06.04.1966. – In the total extent of 1 acre and 52 cents, 0.33 cents were utilized by the Government and the remaining extent of 1 acre and 17 cents are still lying unutilized. – As the writ petitioners have not received any compensation for the above said lands acquired by the Government, by representations dated 24.11.2006 and 06.12.2006, they sought re-conveyance of the lands, as the same were not at all utilized and still lying vacant. – Since there was no response, they filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10599 of 2007 and on 22.03.2007, this Court directed the respondents to dispose of their representations in accordance with the principles laid down in a First Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R. Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months. – By an impugned order dated 03.08.2007, the first respondent therein, i.e. the Government rejected the representations of the writ petitioners for re-conveyance. – Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners filed W.P.No.32034 of 2007 seeking to call for the records of the first respondent vide Letter, in relation to the property bearing Survey, Mogappair Village, measuring an extent of 1 acre 17 cents and quash the same and for a consequential direction to the second respondent/Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) to reconvey the said extent of land in Survey No.296/2, Mogappair Village to them. – The learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 29.01.2014, allowed the Writ Petition – Held, The ruling of the Supreme Court would clearly indicate that Section 48-B will have prospective application and if the lands which have been acquired for the purpose were kept vacant, only then the land owners can claim their right for re-conveyance of the lands if the same could not be used for any other public purpose. – It was also reported by the Chief Revenue Officer of the Housing Board referring to the writ petition filed by one Dilipan in W.P.No.12176 of 2004, for reconveyance of the land and the case ended in favour of the land owner and thereafter, 0.16 acres in S.No.289/1 part and 0.2 acres in S.No.296/1 and 2 Part, totally measuring 0.36 acres were reconveyed as per Government Letter dated 15.10.2007. – It is a matter for the same Government to consider this case also as the issue in question in respect of the above subject has gone up to Supreme Court and finality has been reached. – Therefore, Court is of the considered opinion that a decision by the appropriate Government to be taken in accordance with law and such a decision alone will give a quietus to the issue. – Therefore, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 3.8.2007 rejecting the request of the owners for re-conveyance as the same was passed without considering the judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 290 (supra) and also section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. – In the light of all the above material information, the factual position, the rival claims made by the parties, the Advocate Commissioners report, the affidavit of the Managing Director, TNHB, and the objections made thereon, we feel it appropriate that a decision by the appropriate Government in this case applying Section 48-B of the Act and the ruling of the Supreme Court in respect of re-conveyance would be justiciable. – Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order of the authorities concerned dated 03.08.2007 and also the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2014 made in W.P.No.32034 of 2007 to the extent of ordering reconveyance of the lands to the writ petitioners, the matter is remanded back to the Government to consider the claim of the writ petitioners in accordance with law by applying Section 48-B of the Act and also the ruling of the Supreme Court and take a decision within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. – Writ Appeals Disposed of