KANNAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed against the letter of the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 18.06.2007, by which considering the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2006 in the light of the order of this Court dated 07.03.2007 made in W.P.No.8173 of 2007, the claim of exemption from land acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties comprised in Survey No.12/3 to the extent of 3.26 acres of lands was rejected on the basis that the lands acquired are still required for the public purpose.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of the lands to the extent of 3.26 acres, comprised in S.F.No.12/3 situated at Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District. THE lands were acquired by the first respondent, by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) (in short, "the Act") published on 07.03.1983 and declaration under section 6 of the Act on 19.3.1986, and subsequently, award was passed on 21.08.1987. THE writ petitions filed against the acquisition proceedings were dismissed on 02.08.2000 on the ground of laches, however, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the first respondent for reconveyance of the lands under Section 48B of the Act. 2(a). Based on that, the petitioners have made representation for reconveyance on 23.10.2000, since the Scheme under which lands were acquired was not proceeded with and further, the petitioners were under the impression that the Scheme has been dropped. According to the petitioners, neighbouring lands at Krishnarayapuram Village to the extent of 41 acres were also acquired under the Scheme and in the writ petitions filed by various owners, the acquisition in respect of certain portions were set aside. THE first respondent has also excluded some of the lands comprised in Survey No.2 to 6 at Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore. 2(b). It was, again the petitioners made representation on 20.12.2006, seeking for reconveyance. Since no order was passed, the petitioners filed W.P.No.8173 of 2007, which was disposed of on 07.03.2007 with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of their representation. It is also the case of the petitioners in the affidavit that even after the above said order passed by the High Court, respondents 2 to 4 took steps to allot properties to the third parties, when representation of the petitioners for reconveyance was pending. 2(c). THE petitioners have filed W.P.No.31906 of 2007 forbearing the respondents from allotting the property to the third parties till their writ petition is disposed of. When the matter came up, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the impugned order before this Court, by which the first respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioners made under Section 48B of the Act. In those circumstances, the above said writ petition was directed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 18.06.2007. In the light of the said permission, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order. 2(d). Out of 40.59 acres of lands relating to which land acquisition proceedings are initiated, the petitioners are owning 3.26 acres in S.No.12/3. In respect of 28.70 acres of land in Survey Nos.10/3, 11/3, 13, 14, 15/1&2, 16, 17/1, 17/3a & 3b, 18/1C and 22, the land acquisition proceedings were abated, since declaration were not made. Out of the remaining 11.89 acres of land, in respect of 1.81 acres of land in S.No.19/1, the proceedings were quashed in W.P.No.4188 of 1985, which was confirmed in W.A.No.738 of 1996 dated 16.07.2001. In respect of 1.37, 1.88, 0.28 and 1.59 acres comprised in S.Nos.3/1C, 18/1C, 18/2, 18/3A and 18/3B and 22/1, they are retained for residential and commercial purposes by the owners and thus, the lands are not covered by the acquisition proceedings. THErefore, according to the petitioners, except their lands, the respondents have dropped further proceedings in respect of all other lands. 2(e). THE impugned order of rejection of the application filed under Section 48B of the Act is arbitrary and according to the petitioners, the point raised in the impugned order that the respondents are still interested and proceeded with the public purpose is not valid. THE petitioners also challenge the impugned order on the ground that it is mala fide. It is the further case of the petitioners that the first respondent ought to have independently appreciated the facts of the case while exercising the powers under Sections 48-B and 16-B of the Act and the reliance placed on by the first respondent the Housing Board's letter for rejecting the claim is not permissible. Further, it is challenged on the ground that the purpose for which the lands were acquired is no more in existence and the reason given in the present impugned order is invented to defeat the rights of the petitioners for reconveyance.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional General would submit that as stated in the counter affidavit in detail it is not as if the Scheme has been dropped. In fact, he would submit that the applications have been called for from public for allotment of 54 plots under the Housing Scheme and the applicants have also paid necessary initial charges and the developments have been effected in the sense that the property has been handed over to the contractors for the purpose of putting up the construction and the construction is at various stages. He has also produced photographs to show that the construction is going on in the site. 5(a). He would also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal (2007 (2) CTC 447) to substantiate his contention that Section 48B of the Act does not confer any substantial right on the owners for reconveyance. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in R. Shanmugam and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2006 (4) CTC 290). According to him, the present extent of land has been handed over to the Housing Board and in its turn the Housing Board has got approval for lay out as per the Town and Country Planning Act and the building is being put up and the acquired property has been vested with the Government for the use of the Housing Board, viz., the requisitioning body. He would also submit that the power of the Government for reconveyance under Section 48B of the Act will apply only in respect of unused lands, whereas in the present case, the lands of the petitioners are not unused.