IMPORTANT POINT
Re-conveyance of acquired land is discretionary under Section 48-B, and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by landowners.

JUDGMENT :

(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order made in W.P.No.14166 of 2001 dated 13.06.2013.)

The respondent in the writ petition Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) is the appellant before us.

2. The respondents in the present writ appeal originally filed writ petition in W.P.No.16051 of 1993 challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the writ petition was dismissed on 27.06.2000. Again after a lapse of 13 years, the respondents filed another writ petition in W.P.No.14166 of 2001, which was allowed and by challenging the said writ order, the present writ appeal is filed.

3. 4(1) Notification was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.138, Housing Department dated 14.05.1975 to acquire 338.28 acres for Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. Section 6 draft declaration was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.964, Housing dated 07.06.1978. Admittedly, an award was passed in Award No.5 of 1986 dated 29.08.1986. It is not in dispute that lands in Survey Nos.14/2C, 14/2B, 14/4B, 14/3B measuring totally 64.5 cents covered under the award. The compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act was deposited before the Sub Court, Poonamalle on 14.06.1989.

4. The acquisition proceedings ended in all respects and the subject land vested with the Government. It was allotted to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for developing Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme and the Housing Board has taken possession of the subject property. The original land owners in the year 2013 filed a writ petition, which was allowed, against which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board preferred the Second Appeal mainly on the ground that the acquisition proceedings was completed in all respects and compensation determined was also deposited in the Court. Therefore, the land vest with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and few encroachers entered the acquired land and claiming re-conveyance of the land, which cannot be granted by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Neighbourhood Scheme was developed and the subject land is under the encroachment on account of the writ petition and the writ appeal pending for about 23 years.

6. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, the learned counsel for the respondents 14 and 15 would submit that the third party also had purchased the property and representations are submitted to the Government to re-convey the land under Section 48-B of the Act. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.136, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10.10.2023, thereby constituting Special Committee for addressing grievances. Representations submitted before the said Committee constituted is not considered.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that re-conveyance is the discretion conferred on the Government and Court cannot issue any directions to re-convey the land, which were already acquired for public purposes. Re-conveyance of the acquired land cannot be claimed as an absolute right, since Section 48-B is an enabling provision and the Government in its discretion has to exercise by assigning valid reasons. Erroneous exercise of discretion is also improper. While exercising the power of re-conveyance, the Government has to assign valid reasons.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly approached the Committee constituted by the Government and it is left open to them to pursue the application, if any pending. As far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the Writ Court has gone beyond the scope of the power of re-conveyance conferred on the Government land under Section 48-B.

9. Earlier writ petition filed by the very same respondents challenging the land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.16051 of 1993 was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 27.06.2000. That being so, after a lapse of 13 years the Writ Court in the impugned order raised a question that why the Government has thought it fit not to exempt the land in question alon