L. SELVAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 16274 of 2008 and 15694 of 2008 for quashing the orders of the first respondent dated 16.9.2005 and 3.11.2005 rejecting his representation for release of the land under section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and to direct the respondents to re-convey the land in Survey No. 251/2 measuring an extent of 1 acre 38.5 cents at Padi Village, Ambattur and to execute reconveyance deed.

(2.) It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu, by notification dated 12.1 1.1975, initiated land acquisition proceedings followed by declaration dated 26.1.1976 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The awards were passed in respect of Survey Nos. 251/1 and 251/2 in the year 1983 and 1984 respectively.

(3.) The appellant's case was that, initially the Tamil Nadu Housin Board wanted to acquire the land of the appellant-writ petitioner an others for Ambattur neighbourhood scheme. The land was required for implementation of the housing scheme as well as for the formation of the railway line, and the railway road called Inner Circular Road. The appellant filed representation to the Government requesting to release his land and to reconvey the same to him on the ground that the land could not be developed either for Ambattur neighbourhood scheme or for railway project. Appellant-writ petitioner alleged that the Inner Circular Road is no longer required in view of the abandonment of the neighbourhood scheme. The contention of the appellant-writ petitioner was that about 33 years passed away from the date of notification, but the Housing Board did not proceed an inch of its object. It was alleged that in certain areas, the Government, even after initial rejection of representations of the land owners for re-conveyance of the land under section 48-B, and after resubmitting the same once again by the landowners, the lands have been re-conveyed in their favour. It was contended by the appellant-writ petitioner that the authorities have acted discriminately and adopted colourable exercise of their powers inasmuch as taking decisions for re-conveyance in favour of some of the landowners and rejecting the same in respect of the other landowners.