Ratios
a. No unlimited jurisdiction is vested with any judicial or quasi-judicial forum.
b. No authority, be it administrative or judicial has any power to exercise the discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons thereof.
c. When something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, it must be done according to the rule of reasons and justice, and it should not be according to the whims of the authorities.
d. The concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, and that like should be treated alike.

CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. The appellant in all these appeals is the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, which was arrayed as the respondent in the writ petitions. Since, the challenge in these appeals is to a common order passed in all the writ petitions along with the batch of cases, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. We have elaborately heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The matter relates to acquisition of a vast extent of land in Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District, for the formation of Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme by the appellant Board.

4. Some facts are necessary before we proceed to examine the controversy/issue in these appeals. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 13.03.1998, for the purpose of a Neighborhood Scheme and an extent of 1973.74 acres was sought to be acquired. Subsequently, the Government decided to drop the acquisition proceedings to an extent of 1186.38 acres. Thus, the notification covered an extent of 787.36 acres, and out of the said extent, 7.57 acres was excluded by the Government and in respect of an extent of 22.46 acres, the Government allowed the acquisition to lapse. Thereafter, the Government on their own volition dropped the acquisition to an extent of 30.21 acres. Ultimately, the award was passed only to an extent of 671.10 acres, and out of the balance extent of 86.5 acres, 79.29 acres were covered by the writ petitions pending before this Court and out of the said extent, the acquisition in respect of 50.57 acres was allowed to be lapsed and only 35.48 acres was covered in the batch of writ petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment.

5. It is noticed that out of an extent of 671.10 acres for which awards were passed, 496.54 acres were covered in 299 writ petitions, out of which 102 writ petitions covering an extent of 176.38 acres were disposed of in favour of the land owners and the said extent was re-conveyed, by exercising the powers under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), after recovering the amounts paid along with interest. The respondent/writ petitioners had filed one batch of the writ petitions, seeking to quash an order passed by the State Government dated 2.01.2008, by which, the respondent/writ petitioners' request for reconveyance was rejected. In the other batch of cases, the writ petitioners had challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and for other allied reliefs. The learned Single Judge, by an elaborate judgment, allowed all the writ petitions.

Aggrieved by such judgment, the appellant Board has filed these appeals.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Section 48B of the Act is not attracted in this batch of cases, since the possession of the land has not been taken over by the Board. It is further contended that the writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, have no right to seek for re-conveyance. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the Government order, re-conveying a portion of the land in favour of one Tmt.K.Palaniammal for allowing the writ petitions, but the said order is a wrong order passed by the Government, since Section 48B of the Act does not apply and the Government cannot be compelled to follow a wrong order. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that merely because another piece of land has been released from the purview of acquisition, it cannot be presumed that the Housing Board has abandoned the scheme. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Housing Board vs. Keeravaniammal, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 255 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in