Land once vested in the state cannot be reconveyed to the original owner unless specific legal conditions are met and public purpose is no longer required.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48-B - Request for reconveyance of land not justified as it was still needed for public purpose - Court held that once land is vested in the state, the landowner has no claim for reconveyance unless specific legal conditions are met.(Paras 10-11)

(B) Encroachment - Petitioners' illegal occupation of acquired land negated their claim for equity - The court emphasized that the prior awarding of land has fully vested in the state, and claims for reconveyance after statutory acquisition must follow explicitly outlined legal frameworks.(Paras 5-9, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought reconveyance of land acquired for public purpose (house sites) and claimed their livelihood depended on it, but evidence of prior possession and ongoing public purpose for the land acquisition was presented by respondents.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners did not establish a right to reconvey the land as it was being utilized for public interest and they illegally occupied it.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of acquired land despite encroachment and ongoing need for that land for public purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the conditions for reconveyance under section 48-B were not satisfied due to public need and encroachment by petitioners.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek reconveyance of land due to prior ownership. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents argue land is needed for public purpose. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court emphasizes conditions for reconveyance based on public need. (Para 8 , 10)
4. the petitioners' encroachment negates their claim for reconveyance. (Para 11)

1. The petitioners have sought for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to re - convey / transfer of the land in R.S.No. 1520-1, admeasuring 3 Acres and 20 Cents, situated at Anthiyur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, to and in their favour.

2. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioners have contended that their father, K. Ramasamy Gounder, was the owner of the abovesaid land. Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 in Andhiyur Village, in order to distribute house sites to 51 families of barbers and 44 families of washermen. S.4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No. 378, Backward Classes Department, dated 30-04-1989, was published. S.5 - A enquiry was conducted on 03.08.1989. Award No. 5 of 1990, dated 29.03.1990, was passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi - Dravidar Welfare, Erode.

3. According to the petitioners, they were informed of the acquisition proceedings. They sent representations, dated 29.06.2011, 11.08.2003 and 14.10.2004, seeking for reconveyance / transfer, by invoking the provisions under S.48 - B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The lands in their possession are dry lands, unfit for cultivation. They eak out their livelihood from the lands in R.S.No. 1520-1, admeasuring 3 Acres and 20 Cents, situated in Anthiyur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The respondents have not passed any orders. Hence, the present writ petition for the reliefs, as stated supra.

4. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following unreported decisions, viz., W.P.Nos. 7492, 9364 to 9368 of 2010, dated 03.08.2011 (V. Senthilkumar v. State of Tamil Nadu) and W.A.Nos. 252 to 255 of 2011, dated 16.08.2011 (Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Uma Maheswari Ramasamy).

5. Material on record discloses that on 08.11.2004, interim injunction has been granted. Seeking to vacate the injunction, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, Chennai - 9, has filed a detailed counter - affidavit, contending inter alia that as no suitable lands were available, acquisition proceedings, in respect of the lands, measuring 1.22.5 hectares, in S.F.No. 1520/1 of Anthiyur Village, Bhavani Taluk, for providing house site pattas to 95 families of Barbers and Washermen, residing in Anthiyur. Pachampalayam and Gettisamudram Villages of Bhavani Taluk, was initiated. According to him, notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) was issued in G.O No. 378,. Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 20.4.1989, published in T.N.G.G Part II S.2, dated 10.5.1989, at Page No. 6 and the same was published in 'Dinakaran' Daily on 8.5.1989 and 'Viduthalai' Daily, dated 17.5.1989. The draft notification under S.4(1) was published in the locality on 8.6.1989 and notices in Form - 3 were published in the notice board of the following offices, as detailed below :
1. Office of the Spl Tahsildar (ADW) Erode : 7.6.1989
2. Taluk Office, Bhavani : 14.6.1989
3. Police Station, Anthiyur : 14.6.1989
4. Sub Registrar Office, Anthiyur : 14.6.1989

6. The respondent has further submitted that necessary notices in Form 3A were served on the land owners on 17.7.1989. They refused to receive Form 3A notice. Enquiry under S.5A of the said Act was conducted on 3.8.1989 and 5A (2) proceedings were issued on 3.8.1989. The petitioners did not appear in the enquiry proceedings. Draft declaration under S.6 of the said Act was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 25, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 23.1.1990 and the same was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15

MADRAS HIGH COURTS. Manikumar, J.Gunasekaran R. and Others v. Secretary Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Department ChennaiW. P. No. 32402 of 2004

Land once vested in the state cannot be reconveyed to the original owner unless specific legal conditions are met and public purpose is no longer required.

Cases Referred (5)

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Manikumar, J.
Gunasekaran R. and Others v. Secretary Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Department Chennai
W. P. No. 32402 of 2004