A NEELAVATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these three writ petitions were land owners in Survey Nos. 187/1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F, 181/3 and 188 to an extent of 3. 7 acres at Alamelumangapuram, Vellore Taluk and District. These lands were originally acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing housing units by the Housing Board. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the original land owner by name Kanniappa Mandhiri in W. P. No. 6411 of 1989. An interim stay was granted initially against the acquisition and ultimately, the writ petition itself came to be allowed by an order dated 11. 9. 1991. It is after the quashing of the proceedings, the original land owner sold the portion of the notified area to the petitioners herein, while one set of petitioners purchased the land in 1992, the other set of petitioners purchased the land in 1994 to an extent of 4 acres and 50 cents. Thereafter, they obtained a lay out approval by the concerned authorities and plotted out the land and sold it to several persons.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the State filed an appeal before this Court against the order passed by the learned Judge quashing the proceedings in W. A. No. 248 of 1995. The writ appeal came to be allowed by a judgment dated 1. 10. 1997. In the writ appeal, the original owner alone were made a party and the subsequent purchasers were not aware of the writ appeal, and it was brought before the Court with an inordinate delay of 4 years and was allowed after a period of six years. However, at the instance of the present petitioners, the original owner as well as the petitioners filed a review application before this Court in C. M. P. No. 3 of 1998 to review the order passed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by its order dated 4. 2. 1998, passed the following order:-"learned counsel for the petitioners very lucidly and vociferously on the sole ground, contended that in view of the delay in filing the appeal during which they purchased the land and further sold it to the small plot holder, the acquisition held to be valid be set aside to the extent the land has been purchased on equitable grounds or at least the State be directed to release the same. 2. In our considered view, it is not a sufficient ground for reviewing the order on merits. Be that as it is, as it has already been observed that any owner of the land which includes the applicants also will be at liberty to approach the State bringing out the true facts to their notice for appropriate relief in accordance with law. We have no doubt in the impartiality of the State in considering the representation. Review applications are dismissed. Consequently, C. M. P. No. 381 of 1998 is also dismissed. In view of this, no orders are required in C. M. P. No. 473 of 1998. "

(3.) TAKING advantage of the said observation, the present petitioners as well as the original owner, Kanniappa Mandhiri, filed applications before the State Government invoking the power under Section 48b of the Land Acquisition Act and sought for re-conveyance of the land. On the basis of the applications made by the petitioners including the original owner in W. P. No. 1091/2000, the State called for remarks from the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Then, upon taking the opinion of the Housing Board, they passed the impugned order dated 3. 6. 1999 stating that the request of the petitioners was considered in consultation with the Housing Board. It was stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has also taken possession of the lands and are also implementing the schemes and the lands are also required for the integrated housing scheme. Therefore, the Government had expressed his inability to re-convey the lands of the petitioners. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the three writ petitions.