Proper legal acquisition must precede private property sale; subsequent purchasers cannot contest valid acquisition proceedings upheld by the Supreme Court.

ORDER :

R. Vijayakumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the public notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17.09.2025 inviting applications for allotment of plots to the economically weaker sections.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

As per the writ averments, the property in S.No.580/1, plot No.15, Kulavanikapuram, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, was originally owned by the petitioner's father, namely, Thirumal and patta also stood in his name. He had passed away leaving behind his wife, namely, Prema and his two daughters Suja Selvamanohari, Sasikala Sornam and the writ petitioner as his legal heirs.

3. It is further contended in the affidavit that the petitioner's father had obtained a building plan approval and had put up construction in the above said plot. Later the petitioner's father has executed a registered release deed in favour of the petitioner on 15.06.2021. Suddenly in the midst of 2021, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board officials entered into the building and started demolishing the larger extent of the plot on the ground that the lands have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Without affording any opportunity as per law, the officials have forcibly vacated the petitioner from his residence by demolishing the house. Many complaints were lodged to the higher officials. Later the petitioner came to know about the alleged acquisition in the year 2001 has not been progressed and full compensation amount has not been deposited before the Court concerned. The Housing Board has also given an application to the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, for cancellation of the patta and to enter their name.

4. It is further contended in the affidavit that the first respondent by way of G.O.(Ms).No.10, Housing and Urban Development [LA-2(2)] Department, dated 23.01.2025 has appointed two men committee to reconvey the acquired lands to the owners which remain unused on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have got lapsed under the Act. In addition to that, a Government order was passed in G.O.(Ms).No.52, Housing and Urban Development [LA-2(2)], Department, dated 27.03.2025, wherein the unused survey numbers have been tabulated. In the said tabulation, the property in dispute is also found. Therefore, the petitioner was under the hope that the lands would be re- conveyed in his favour. Under these circumstances, the impugned public notification has been issued for sale of the plot on 17.09.2025.

Submission of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the award having not been passed within a period of two years from the date of 6 declaration, the entire acquisition proceedings had got lapsed. That apart, the lands have been directed to be re-conveyed to the right to owners under G.O. (Ms).No.52, Housing and Urban Development [LA-2(2)], Department, dated 27.03.2025. That apart, for the past 25 years, no developmental works have taken place in the acquired property. Before cancellation of the patta, notices were not issued to the person concerned in whose name patta was standing. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the public notification on the ground that the property continues to be a private property.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Housing Board contends that under G.O.(Ms).No.52, Housing and Urban Development [LA-2(2)], Department, dated 27.03.2025, only an extent of 0.37 cents of land was exempted in S.No.1025 which is covered under 4(1) noti