Unutilised acquired land after prolonged delay entitles owner to reconveyance consideration per policy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP No. 32252 of 2018 Latha ..Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.

2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Unit-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by its Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Mogappair Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-600 101.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of lands comprised in petitioner’s lands admeasuring 25 cents in 0.40.0 hectares in Survey No.18/1A in Perumal Agaram Village, Block No.3, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District covered by award No.3/2005 dated 20.10.2005.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, Standing Counsel for R3 ****

Order

The Writ Petition has been filed for a declaration to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of lands comprised in petitioner’s lands admeasuring 25 cents in 0.40.0 hectares in Survey No.18/1A in Perumal Agaram Village, Block No.3, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District covered by award No.3/2005 dated

20.10.2005 as null and void.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the petitioner, the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings in order to form Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The lands were acquired and also a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.258, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10.10.2003. Subsequently, an award was passed on 20.10.2005. Subsequent to the passing of the award, the petitioner was not paid with any compensation. But, according to the respondents they have paid the compensation to some other person for the petitioner’s subject land.

3. He would further submit that possession was not taken over by the respondents and no developmental activities regarding housing scheme has been brought in and developed and private people are enjoying the properties by constructing multi-storey buildings. He would therefore submit that the purpose for which lands were acquired was not achieved. In very many cases where the lands acquired for certain purpose remains un-utilised for a certain period and the project has not commenced, then the policy decision was taken by the respondents to re-consider the subject properties and re-convey the same to the original owners, when an application is made for the same.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the award was passed on 20.10.2005, but the possession was not taken over from the petitioner. Further he would fairly submit that though award passed and compensation amount was paid, the respondents have not developed any housing project in the subject property. Therefore, in the event of any application filed for reconveyance, it will be considered in accordance with law.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. The respondents having acquired the land in the year 2003 and an award came to be passed in the year 2005, they have neither taken over possession of the land from the petitioner nor taken any steps to implement the project for development of housing scheme. In many cases, the respondents have taken a policy decision to re-convey the lands at the req