P MUTHUKARUPPAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 5.5.2009 and the subsequent order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 18.4.2011, and to direct the respondents to re-convey the property, in S.Nos.1410/1 and 1410/3, having an extent of 1.52 acres, situated in Senapiratti Village, Karur Taluk and District.

(2.) It has been stated that the property in question belonged to the petitioner. The said land had been utilized for agricultural purposes. While so, land acquisition proceedings had been initiated, in respect of 99.59 acres of land, in Senapiratti Village, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of a neighbourhood scheme. A draft notification had been issued, under Section 4(1) of the Act and it had been approved by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.996, Housing and Urban Development, dated 4.11.1982. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted, under Section 5A of the said Act. The petitioner had submitted his objections. However, the objections raised by the petitioner had been rejected. Thereafter, on 15.10.1984, a declaration had been made, under Section 6(1) of the Act and it had been published in the gazette, dated 14.11.1984. An award enquiry had been conducted, on 2.4.1986. Thereafter, the award had been passed, on 10.6.1987, vide Award No.02/87. However, no compensation had been received by the petitioner, till date. While so, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to re-convey the lands in question, under Section 48-B of the Act.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the request made by the petitioner, under Section 48-B of the Act had been rejected by the respondents, arbitrarily. Some of the lands in question, in the area acquired by the respondents in Senapiratti Village, had been re-conveyed to their owners. However, the request of the petitioner had been rejected by the respondents, without adducing proper reasons for doing so.