PERICHIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the impugned order, the Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for reconveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Mr. R. N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would attack the order on the following grounds:

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, I went through the relevant provisions of law. Before that, I want to apply my mind to the order challenged in this writ petition. The order shows that the lands acquired have been transferred to the Housing Board; there is an approved lay out in d. T. And C. P vide proceeding in ref. No. 313 of 1999; the lands are in possession of the Housing Board and on account of several litigations filed by the land owners before this court, the Scheme could not be implemented and that in the order, the scheme is going to be implemented. Therefore there is no question of forfeiture. In a case governed by statutory vesting under section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the State of Tamil nadu, it is needless to state that there is no vesting with the Government. There cannot be vesting at the same time on two persons. It is no doubt true that once the land is acquired, the initial vesting is with the Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. But once the Housing Board pays the land price, then under Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the land stands transferred to the Housing Board and on such transfer the vesting is with the Housing Board. Once the statutory vesting takes place with the housing Board, then the Housing Board, which is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, a self contained Act, has to deal with such property only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. That Act itself contains as to how the property so acquired; transferred and vesting with them shall be dealt with. Therefore it is clear to my mind that once the lands acquired were transferred and vested with the Housing Board, then the tamil Nadu Housing Board Act alone would govern the dealing of the property in question and all rights and liabilities arising out of that land have to be necessarily tested only with the provisions of the said Act alone and not under the provisions of any other Act.

(3.) SINCE vesting of the land already with the Housing Board had taken place and the condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act is that the land must continue to vest with the government, then in the absence of such vesting, the Government cannot exercise the power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. Once a statutory vesting takes place under Section 17 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, the property has to be dealt with under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu housing Board Act and unless there is an enabling provision, either in the land Acquisition Act itself or in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, then such vesting with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot be divested by an order of court and consequently revesting in the Government shall not take place.