THE TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NANDANAM, CHENNAI Vs. K. MEENAKSHI ACHI (DECEASED) REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, P.L. CHINNAPALANIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original owners of the land / the first respondent and two other adjacent land owners filed petitions for return of the land under Sec. 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), on account of non-utilisation of the land which formed the subject matter of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the 1894 Act with the declaration under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act being dated 17.12.1979 and 24.10.1980 respectively.

(2.) It is the case of the original petitioner / first respondent that the land acquisition proceedings under Sec. 4 of the 1894 Act initiated in reference to a majority of the lands surrounding the area of the original petitioner / first respondent stand quashed, for which no fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated. Not only that, the original petitioner and two other adjacent land owners averred that they were prepared to surrender an extent of 59 cents of land for purpose of providing a 50 feet road if the request for release of the lands can be considered. The result would, thus, be that out of the lands in question, 59 cents could be retained and remaining land could be returned to the original petitioner and two others. The lands were stated to have been handed over to the Housing Board / appellant on 04.12.1982, but there were interim orders and thus, only the remaining land was capable of being developed in the meantime. The original concept of having integrated development of the housing scheme could not be sub-served on account of quashing of the acquisition proceedings and thus, the land of the original petitioner may not be required.

(3.) It was not disputed before the learned Single Judge that the notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the 1894 Act in reference to the lands surrounding the land in question had been quashed and the owners were dealing with their land. There were certain communications issued by the Superintendent Engineer supportive to the stand of the original petitioner. It came to light that even of the taken over lands, 108 acres had been utilised and 28.38 acres of land was still covered by the order of stay. Since even after 20 years, the lands were not being put to use for construction of house for which the original scheme was intended, it was found that without acquiring the surrounding lands, the original petitioner's land could not be utilised especially keeping in view the report of the Executive Engineer of the appellant at Madurai Division dated 13.07.1994. The order refusing to transfer the land was, thus, quashed by the learned Single Judge and it was directed that the original petitioner's land should be released from acquisition and transferred back to the original petitioner and the two other land owners, retaining the extent of 59 cents alone, in view of the original petitioners having volunteered to surrender their remaining land.