V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

A prime property in the heart of the city of Chennai, now valued even as per the Government guidelines, at more than Rs.100 crores, measuring an extent of Acres 1.62 (or about 70,632 sq.feet), located in Sardar Patel Road, running from Adyar upto Guindy and situate just opposite to the State Raj Bhavan and adjoining the famous Guindy Engineering College (now known as Anna University), has been directed to be reconveyed to the original land owners, after more than 45 years of acquisition and payment of compensation, on the only condition that the land owners re-pay to the Government, a pittance of Rs. 33,947.60 which they received as compensation 4 decades ago. This has generated lot of controversy both inside and outside the court room. What we have on hand is a part of it, in the form of 3 writ appeals, one petition for review and one contempt petition.

2. By a Notification dated 31.8.1960 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government sought to acquire a land of an extent of Acres 1.62 situate in Venkatapuram Village, in the Taluk of extended areas of the District of Madras, for the purpose of construction of a hostel and buildings for the Central Co-operative Institute, Madras. The acquisition was made invoking the emergency provision under Section 17(1) of the Act and hence after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.11.1960. The possession of the land was also taken on 24.11.1960. Thereafter, an award was passed in Award No.4 of 1961 on 15.3.1961 fixing the compensation payable at Rs.33,941/-.

3. The land owner by name Manali Ramakrishna Mudaliar, received compensation amount and did not even seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement. It is relevant to note that the land owner neither challenged the acquisition proceedings nor questioned the quantum of compensation, but received the amount of compensation as fixed in the award passed under Section 11 on 15.3.1961.

4. Exactly after 45 years of the issue of the Notification under Section 4(1) and after 44 years of the payment of compensation, the wife and son of the original owner Manali Ramakrishna Mudaliar and the wife and children of the brother of Manali Ramakrishna Mudaliar joined together and gave representations on 19.4.2005 and 19.6.2005, seeking re-conveyance of the lands under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inserted by way of Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1997. The re-conveyance was sought on the ground that the lands were never put to use for the purpose for which they were acquired.

5. Subsequently, they also gave another representation on 16.11.2006 and thereafter came with a writ petition in W.P.No.49265 of 2006, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to consider their representation dated 16.11.2006.

6. On 2.1.2007, this Court passed an innocuous order, in the said writ petition, directing the first respondent to consider the representation and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks, in the light of a decision of this Court in R.Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (4) CTC 290].

7. But by a letter dated 20.3.2007, the Government rejected the request for re-conveyance, on the ground that the land had already vested in the Government and that the Government was in possession for more than 47 years.

8. Challenging the order of rejection dated 20.3.2007, the legal heirs of the original owner filed a fresh writ petition in W.P.No.26990 of 2007. It appears that the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 10.9.2007, even at the stage of admission. By the said order, the learned Judge set aside the order of rejection dated 20.3.2007 on the short ground that an application under Section 48-B ought to have been conside