S BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Phoenix, at least, needed its ashes to come alive again whereas out of nothing the Petitioner wants the acquired land which was acquired by the Government as early as in 1949 for expansion of graveyard. Phoenix is a unique mythological bird of the Arabian desert, worshipped in ancient Egypt, that burned itself on a funeral pyre every five or six centuries and rose from its ashes with renewed youth. The Petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court for the relief, which he could not even imagine in his dream. The case of the Petitioner is that the property belonging to his father was acquired by the First Respondent for the purpose of extension of Otteri burial ground by issuing Section 4(1) Notification dated 23.2.1949. After hearing his father's objection, declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.12.1949. The quantum of compensation payable for the acquired land also attained finality in Appeal No. 811 of 1952, by order dated 28.11.1956 passed by the First Bench of this Court.

(2.) After 5 decades, on 18.8.2005, the Petitioner gave a representation to the authorities under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act for re-conveyance of the land as the acquired land has not been utilised for burial ground. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 9230 of 2006 for a direction to consider the representation dated 18.8.2005. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 3.4.2006 in W.P. No. 9230 of 2006, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, that is being challenged before this Court.

(3.) Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the land acquired is no more required for extension of burial ground. After coming to know about the non-requirement of the land, the Petitioner gave a representation on 18.8.2005 under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act for re-conveyance and the same was rejected mechanically without any material details stating that the acquired land is utilised for burial ground purpose only. According to him, the impugned order is silent about the details. Moreover, the counter filed by the Respondent does not specially deal with what has been contended in ground Nos. (E) & (F) which state that the subject land is still lying vacant without serving any purpose and the land is not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following Judgments: