JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 12.07.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2660 of 2014, on the file of this Court.)

1. This Writ Appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the order dated 12.07.2021, made in W.P.(MD) No.2660 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 13.01.2014, and to direct the respondents to transfer the land comprised in Survey No.182/1 belonging to Late Balakrishnan Pillai in Nagamangalam Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, set out in G.O.Ms.No.2713 Education, Science and Technology, dated 16.12.1982, to the petitioner and other heirs of the said Late Balakrishnan Pillai in terms of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Bench dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the prayer for reconveyance of land cannot be granted as the State Government has already initiated steps to use the land for public purpose for issuing 'House Site Patta' to persons belonging to Backward Community (B.C) and Most Backward Community (M.B.C.). The correctness of the said order is being challenged before us by way of this Writ Appeal.

3. We have heard Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, learned Senior Counsel for M.T.Antony Arul Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel for State Government, assisted by Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. The facts which are necessary for consideration as to whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the order of the learned Single Bench are noted herein below: The land in question was acquired for public purpose for constructing the building for Law College at Tiruchirappalli and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.2713, Education, Science and Technology, dated 16.12.1982. The land in question belongs to Late Balakrishnan Pillai, who is the father-in-law of the appellant. Originally, the land owner did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings and the same culminated in Award dated 23.09.1986. The compensation amount was accepted by the original land owner. The appellant would state that apart from the land owned by Balakrishnan Pillai, the land owned by his brother was also subject matter of acquisition and he had challenged the same by filing Writ Petition and on account of the orders passed in the Writ Petition the land stood excluded. Further, the appellant's father-in-law accepted the acquisition proceedings as it was for public purpose to construct Law College in Tiruchirappalli. However, the project was not implemented and therefore, the original land owner submitted a representation dated 23.09.1991, requesting to return the land, which was acquired. The request was found to be genuine by the Principal, Law College, Tiruchirappalli and he has addressed to the Director of Legal Studies stating that the land of Balakrishnan measuring 7.68 Acre can be returned to him after receiving the compensation amount.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to various other correspondences, namely, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy dated 29.10.1992, recommending return of the land to Balakrishnan Pillai; the report of the District Collector to the Government dated 17.11.1192, through Commissioner of Land Administration, recommending return of the land to Balakrishnan Pillai and the report of the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 05.01.1993, recommending return of the land to the erstwhile land owner.

6. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's father-in-law passed away and his son Mr.B.Ravichandran filed a representation for return of the land and the said petition was considered and enquiry was ordered