IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P. Nos. 6693, 6694 and 25981 of 2016 K.Bhuvaneswari …Petitioner Vs.

1. The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Land Acquisition Officer and The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition VII Unit II, Tamilnadu Housing Board Scheme, Arignar Anna Shopping Complex, VII Avenue, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 101.

3. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

4. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

5. The Asst. Director of Town and Country Planning, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.

6. The President, Alapakkam Village, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the orders of approval in No. 39/2015 in proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.12/2015 se ma 3 dated 24-03-2015 by the 5^th respondent and quash the same as far as the petitioner’s land is concerned in Survey No.67 measuring an extent of 0.72 Cents in Survey No.68/1 and 68/2 measuring an extent of 0.69 Cents totaling to 1 Acres 41 Cents situate in Alapakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan For Respondent : Mr.M.Shahjahan, Special Government Pleader (for R1, R2 & R4 to R6)

Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jayapal (for R3)

O R D E R

Heard Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan for the petitioner, Mr.M.Shajahan, learned Special Government Pleader for the first, second and fourth to sixth respondents and Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal for the third respondent.

2. The following facts are not in dispute:

The petitioner was running a modern rice mill in the property situated at Survey Nos. 31/4B, 31/4A1, 31/7, 31/4A2, 32, 67, 68/1 and 68/2 of Alapakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification in exercise of its power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring an extent of 72 cents in Survey No. 67 and 69 cents in Survey Nos. 68/1 and 68/2. The acquisition so made on 28.08.1992. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 9699 of 1991 challenging the formation of a new housing scheme.

3. This Court, after recording the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, disposed the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make the representation to the Government of Tamil Nadu and called upon the said authority to pass an order on the basis of the letter of the Housing Board dated 04.10.1989. This representation came to be rejected by the Housing Board by an order dated 07.09.2001 holding that the request for deletion of Survey Nos. 67, 68/1 and 68/2 cannot be acceded to as the same is required for formation of a Housing Scheme.

4.Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and sought a direction for re-conveyance of the property. Representation to that effect was made on 11.09.2006. The same was not disposed. Hence, another writ petition in W.P. No. 46677 of 2006 came to be filed. This Court directed the representation dated 11.09.2006 to be disposed of.

5. By an order dated 21.05.2009, the State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 rejected the representation holding that the lands are essential for the purpose of implementing the Housing Board’s Scheme.

6. Another writ petition was filed challenging this order in W.P. No.

15422 of 2009. In the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act itself came to be repealed and replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner claiming the benefit of Section 24(2) filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 3560 of

2016. That writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.09.2025.

7. The present writ petition ar