TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. JAYA GURUMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 10.04.2006 made in writ petition No.2589 of 2006 directing the Government and the Housing Board, respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the writ petition, to take appropriate action to evict the encroachers and deliver possession of the land in an extent of 0.06 cents comprised in survey No.6 1B/9 at Ponmeni village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District to the writ petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(2.) THAT order came to be passed in the following circumstances : The first respondent's land in an extent of 0.06 cents in R.S. No.6, 1B/9, Ponmeni village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District had been acquired by the Government for the Ellis Nagar Nieghbourhood scheme among other lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board contended that the acquiring body did not hand over the subject land to the Housing Board. When the land was not handed over to the Housing Board, learned single Judge was wrong in directing the Housing Board to redeliver possession of the land to the respondent. In order to establish his case, the counsel produced transfer charge certificate issued by the Special Deputy Surveyor (L.A.) and Head Surveyor, Special Division, Ellis Nagar Scheme, Madurai dated 22.11.1982 wherein the details of handing over of various survey numbers have been given. So far as the first respondent's land in survey No.6.1B/9 in an extent of 0.06 cents is concerned, the charge certificate categorically states that as the land was covered by the writ petition before the High Court, possession of the land has not been handed over to the Housing Board. On that basis, the Housing Board contended that the direction given by the learned single Judge directing the Housing Board to re -handover the vacant land within the stipulated period without any basis. When possession itself has not been handed over to the Housing Board, directing the Housing Board to re -handover possession to the first respondent/writ petitioner is nothing but a direction to perform the impossibility.