R KANNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are having the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, they filed writ petitions before the Principal Seat in the year 2002 seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings taken by the State Government acquiring the petitioners' land in favour of Small Industries Development Corporation. Those writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court. At that time, the petitioners contended that they were owners of the land holding Cowle patta and possession was not taken over. But the seventh respondent therein, Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO), the second respondent herein appeared before this Court and informed that major portions of the land were utilized and as per the Government Policy, trees have been planted and as and when necessary, such lands shall be utilized. The counter affidavit filed by the SIDCO, the 7th respondent therein asserted that since they are the requisitioning body and compensation was paid and the writ petitions having been filed after a long period, the writ petitions were not maintainable. This Court after recording the same held that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the impugned acquisition made in favour of the SIDCO. However, it was stated that if the land was not utilized, it is open to the petitioners to approach the State Government by filing appropriate application under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1997.

(2.) It was pursuant to the observation made by the learned Judge, the petitioners sent representations to the Small Industries Department seeking for the return of the land. They also stated in the representation that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Sivangai District have recommended their cases.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of an office note stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Sivangai District have recommended their cases. But it is unfortunate such a recommendation furnished by unauthorized authorities, for the purpose exercising of power under Section 48-B is being produced. It is very clear that if the requisitioning body was not using the land for the purpose for which it was acquired and if such authority returned the land to the State Government and the State Government on taking a decision in respect of the utilisation of the land for any other public purpose, then, if it is considered that the land should be returned to the original owners it may do so after recovering the compensation paid as well as the interest on the said amount. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Sivangai District have no right over the said land as it had already given to SIDCO.