VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN T R PACHAMUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEME; MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner without due process of law in respect of the petitioner's land bearing Survey B No. 134/1, Ramapuram Village, Ambatur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

(2.) The petitioner, which is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act 27 of 1975, is running an educational institution for the past 30 years. The predecessor-in-title of the property owned a total extent of 9.94 acres comprised in S. No. 134/1 and few other survey numbers in Ramapuram villages. The respondents sought to acquire the said land and issued a notification u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act on 14.5.1995. It was challenged before the High Court in WP No. 527 of 1995. This Court passed an order restraining the respondents therein from dispossessing the petitioners. Pending the writ petition, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board decided to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of S. No. 134/1 - 2.28 acres. But, the Housing Board expressed its inability to complete the legal formalities in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by the original land owner. Therefore, the land owner withdrew the writ petition to facilitate the respondents to complete the legal formalities of dropping the acquisition proceedings. It is also learnt that the Housing Board has submitted a proposal for issuance of necessary orders for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings with respect to S. No. 134/1 by publication of notification cancelling the acquisition proceedings. Since then, they are approaching the Government to complete the formalities to drop the land acquisition proceedings. Under those circumstances, in the year 1996, the petitioner herein purchased that land. So far no action has been taken to exclude the said land from acquisition proceedings. It is also learnt that the respondents have dropped acquisition proceedings for some other similarly placed persons. While so, the respondents are now trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land they have purchased. The petitioner invested a huge sums of money in the land believing the promise given by the respondents that the acquisition proceedings would be dropped. Therefore, they cannot go back on the promise and dispossess the petitioner.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board it is stated that an extent of 338.28 acres of land including S. No. 134/1 was acquired and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was approved by the Government on 14.5.1975, and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 11.6.1975; enquiry under Section 5-A and Award enquiry under Section 6 were conducted by the Land Acquisition Officers and an award has been passed on 25.11.1994. The land in S. No. 134/1 was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 13.3.1995 by the Land Acquisition Officer and it is vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board since then. The land is located in the heart of the proposed Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme and is having approach from the existing adjacent scheme already developed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Hence, the land in S. No. 134/1 is essentially required for forming the housing scheme. The former owner Andalammal and others filed WP No. 5 27 of 1995 and this Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by Order dated 29.6.1999. It is further stated that the land was developed with water supply and sewage facility and plots were allotted to general public. The petitioner has trespassed into the property in S. No. 134/1 and commenced the construction work, which is an illegal act. The petitioner is not the owner of the property; he is not having any right in the land. The award was passed on 25.11.1994 and possession of the land was taken by the Housing Board on 13.5.1995. The writ petitioner purchased the land only in 1996. Once possession is taken, the land vest with the Housing Board and it is free from all encumbrances. The petitioner is a trespasser and he has no right whatsoever in the land. This land is essentially required for the Housing Board as access from neighbourhood scheme.