The court confirmed that once land is acquired under Act 31 of 1978 and compensation has been deposited, no reconveyance is allowed even if the land remains unused.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN.,J The Writ Appeal is filed by the erstwhile owner of the land which was acquired for housing site for Adi Dravidars.

2.Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5.

3.The case of the appellant is that the land acquired for the housing site to Adi-Dravidars has been not put to use for several decades and therefore, the land has to be re-conveyed. However, when a request was made, the same was declined by the Department. Hence a Writ of Certiorari is filed to quash the proceedings of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2529/1986, dated 30.10.1990 and the order passed by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2/32636/2022, dated 00.07.2022.

4.The learned Single Judge, after considering the prayer in the Writ Petition and the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, has placed on record that after completion of the acquisition proceedings, the entire compensation has been deposited and the land acquired has been allotted to the beneficiaries and therefore, there is no reason or provision for reconveyance of acquired land under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act(Act 31 of 1978).The learned Single Judge, taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, had passed the following order:

‘’3.Learned Government Advocate opposes the Petition by referring to the award and pointing out hat the revenue records have been mutated in favour of the Government. He also points out that the compensation amount has been deposited. In support of the contention that reconveyance is not permissible, learned Speial Government Pleader relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2010, the Government of Tamil Nadu and others .vs. Panayamma and others, judgment, dated 24.4.2015, wherein, it was held that there is no provision for reconveyance under Act 31 o

1978.

4.The record discloses that the acquisition proceedings were duly concluded and an award was issued. The RTI reply also reflects that the compensation amount was deposited. The Division Bench of this Court concluded that Act 31 of 1978 does not provide for reconveyance. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the Petitioner to claim compensation in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.’’

5.In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant states that till now the land is left unused and in fact, the Government had subsequently implemented Samuthuvapuram Scheme by acquiring 10 acres of land in the same village, which land also belongs to the appellant. Therefore, the purpose for which the land was acquired does not exist and in view of the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation .vs. Harakchnd Misirimal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the land acquired for a particular purpose not been put into use for more than five years, has to be re-conveyed.

6.The leaned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that it is incorrect to state that the land acquired has not been put to use and by proceedings of the Special Tahsildar, 61 beneficiaries were identified and the acquired land was allotted to them as per proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 2529/1986, dated 30.10.1990. Thereafter, due to other reasons, allotment was cancelled and the department is in the process of identifying new beneficiaries. In fact, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, on instructions, stated that new beneficiaries had already been identified a