SUJATHA NARAYANAN Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is very unfortunate that the petitioner who parted with her land for extension and development of the Besant Nagar Scheme, armed with two Government Orders, allotting initially a plot in the existing area, namely, Besant Nagar and subsequently at K.K.Nagar, without no fault for her she was not provided with any plot from 1983 to till date.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: According to her, she purchased from one Ghulam Mohamooda plot of land in a lay out in S.No.169/1, Thiruvanmiyur Village in Besant Nagar (a colony promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board) on 9.3.1981. THE said plot was 70" by 40" and was priced at Rs.23,340. She was served with a notice under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (L.A.), Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 31.3.1983 stating that her land was required for extension of the Besant Nagar, South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. THE said land was part of a whole area of 2 acres and odd laid out by M/s.Ghulam Mohamood and one Mr.Rajagopal as housing sites. She wrote to the acquisition authority as the proposed land to be acquired from her was the only piece of land owned by her and her husband and was intended to be utilised for putting up a house for their residence. THEy should be provided with an alternate plot for their residence. Both of them are officials of the Indian Council of Medical Research posted at T.B.Research Centre, Madras. Since the acquisition proposal included a lot of the plots belonging to M/s.Ghulam Mohamood, he appears to have applied to the first respondent to exclude his lands from the acquisition proceedings. THE first respondent, accepting the plea of the said Ghulam Mohamood, excluded a major portion of the lay-out promoted by him from acquisition. Only a small portion belonging to the petitioner and some others, who had not sufficient influence to get their lands excluded from the acquisition, were retained in the acquisition proceedings. After knowing that their lands were required for providing a public road (which would have enhanced the value of the plots in the lay-out promoted by Ghulam Mohamood), the petitioner and her husband were regularly corresponding with the respondents about the alternative provision of the plot. Ultimately, the first respondent by G.O.448 of 1985 wherein the first respondent passed orders on 6.5.1988 directing that the petitioner be allotted a plot of the same extent of land as the land taken over from her by the Housing Board. THE second respondent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board was requested to take necessary action early on the said Government Order. Unfortunately, the said Government Order was not implemented. She had to send several reminders. On 2.9.86, another communication was issued instructing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot as per G.O.No.448. Even this was not given effect to till October, 1988. THEreafter, Government Order Ms.No.1382 was passed allotting plot No.110 at K.K.Nagar to her. THE said order was served on her on 18.10.1988. However, the same was cancelled on 21.10.1988 without assigning any reason. THEreafter, she made another round of representation to the Governor, Chief Minister and officials of the Housing Ministry and Tamil Nadu Housing Board were started with personal interviews with most of them. It was discovered in the midst of all these activities that their land which was supposed to have been acquired for providing a public road has been allotted to some individuals for their benefits. Even after one year nothing has been done on her representation. She has received a notice from the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tamil Nadu Housing Board that he is being given a sum of Rs.489 for a plot which she purchase for Rs.23,340. Under these circumstances, having no other effective alternative remedy available to her, she has initially approached this Court by way of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore plot No.6 in S.No.169/1, Thiruvanmiyur Village. Subsequently the said prayer has been amended in W.M.P.No.24057 of 1990, dated 22.10.1990. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner challenges the Government order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1421, Housing and Urban Development, dated 21.10.1988.

(3.) AFTER various representations, it is seen that the Government have passed G.O.Ms.No.448, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 6.5.1985 wherein they directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot a plot of the same extent of land taken over from her by the Housing Board in the same, subject to the collection of development charges as fixed by the Housing Board. The relevant portion from the said Government Order is as follows: