NEELAMBAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners lands were acquired to an extent of 3.73 acres comprised in Survey Nos.21/1, 21/2, 21/3 and 21/4, situated at Velisemmandalam Village, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, for the purpose of implementing the neighbourhood scheme, and the same were notified in G.O.Ms.No.1253, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 19.09.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (in short "the Act"). Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 was also made in G.O.Ms.No.98, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.02.1993. Challenging the above said notifications, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5162 of 1993, which was ultimately dismissed by this Court by order dated 10.01.1996. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar, Housing Scheme, Semmandalam Village, Cuddalore District, passed an award on 03.02.1995 in Award No.10 of 1995. Challenging the award, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.41490 of 2002, whereby this Court, by order dated 22.08.2003 dismissed the writ petition. Against which, when writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.843 of 2004, the same was also dismissed on 18.08.206 by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground of delay and latches in challenging the award. Thereafter, even after 16 years, since there was no progress in the utilization of the lands for the scheme, the petitioner submitted a petition on 07.12.2006 requesting for re -conveyance of the said lands by withdrawing the acquisition proceedings. But, there was no progress by the respondents, hence, he again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23106 of 2007, whereby this Court, by order dated 09.07.2007, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass an order within 18 weeks thereafter. Pursuant to this order, the petitioners again sent a representation dated 25.07.2007, along with a copy of the order passed by this Court, to the respondent to consider their claim for re -conveyance of the above said lands. Although the respondent rejected the petitioners' representation refusing to re -convey the lands on the ground that the lands are required for future implementation of the neighbourhood housing scheme, they have admitted the non -untilisation of the petitioners' lands. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, as pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner, is that though the respondents have issued 4(1) notification followed by a declaration under Section (6), they have not come forward to make use of the lands for implementing the above said scheme, therefore, the above said lands of the petitioners may be directed to be re -conveyed, since the petitioners have not received any compensation from the respondents.

(2.) IN support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, v. Mrs.Lakshmi Bai ((2005) 1 MLJ 717) for a proposition that where the land acquired for town planning scheme was left unutilised for more than two and a half decades, it cannot be used for different purpose and the land owner can ask for re -conveyance of his land.

(3.) HE has also relied upon yet another judgment of this Court in the case of M.Manimegalai and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another (2004 Writ L.R. 789) to say that where the land is acquired for an authority or a company and it is not used by such authority, such non -utilisation is required to be brought to the notice of the Government so that the Government can initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 16 -B of the Act. In the case on hand, he pleaded, even though the petitioners had sent several representations saying that the respondents have miserably failed to utilise the land for more than two decades, the respondents have not considered the genuine request of the petitioners, therefore, such approach of the respondents is against the ratio laid down by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, he pleaded for allowing the writ petition.