A L VELLAICHAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 06.05.2010 and to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 13.05.1998, for reconveyance of the land belonging to the petitioner situated in survey No.390/4, Shollinganallur village.

(2.) The petitioner purchased the land in question during 1986 by a registered sale deed, dated 12.11.1986. The said land along with adjacent lands were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of formation of Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Under the said scheme, the lands which were acquired were to be divided into housing plots and sold to the general public by the draw of lots. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.16138 of 1997, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.1997, as being barred by delay and latches. Since the petitioner was residing in the said land along with his family by constructing a house, he filed a Miscellaneous Petition in W.M.P.No.28334 of 1997, seeking for modification of the order dated 29.10.1997, on the ground that he has built the house in land in question and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.660 of 1987. In the said order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench certain observations were made by which the Board was directed to consider reconveyance of the land to the original land owners. This Court by order dated 27.03.1998, disposed of the Miscellaneous Petition holding that the order passed in the writ petition does not require any modification. However, as the petitioner sought for an observation as made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its order dated 29.08.1996 and in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, it was observed that following the said judgment, it was made clear that it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the Housing Board for reconveyance in conformity with the resolution No.67/86, dated 02.07.1996, passed by the Housing Board, in case the petitioner satisfies the conditions laid down in the said resolution, reconveyance of the area covered by the building put up by the writ petitioner and it is open to the respondents to consider the request and pass orders according to law. Pursuant to such directions/observations, the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.03.1998, requesting the second respondent to exempt his house site and reconvey the land. The second respondent by communication dated 17.04.1998, rejected the petitioner's request. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent on 13.05.1998, since the first respondent is the competent authority to consider for reconveyance under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act (Act). This was followed by a remainder enclosing copy of the order passed in W.M.P.No.28334 of 1997, dated 27.02.1998. Since there was no reply to any of the representations, the petitioner continued to send remainders. While so, by notice dated 06.05.2010, the petitioner was termed as an encroacher of the land allotted to the Housing Board and was called upon to vacate the premises within ten days, failing which the petitioner was informed that he would be evicted from the property and the cost incurred for such process would be recovered from him. That notice dated 06.05.2010, which was received by the petitioner on 10.05.2010, is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contention raised in the writ petition, which have been referredand submitted that the Housing Board has passed a resolution dated 02.07.1986 in resolution No.67/86, reconveying the lands to the erstwhile land owners, who have constructed houses, even though such construction was made after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act subject to the condition that they pay development charges. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Rajeswari Venkatesan & Ors., 2007 5 MadLJ 1327, wherein it was held that the resolution dated 02.07.1986, is also applicable to the cases where buildings have been constructed after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner along with his family are residing in the said property for over 15 years and property tax has also been remitted for the house constructed by the petitioner during 1987 and the petitioner was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd and retired from service during the pendency of this writ petition.