1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.11492 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Chandramohan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Letter Nos.18195/79 dated 28.09.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release the petitioner's land in Survey No.196/8, 196/3, 196/11, 196/7, 197/6 and 197/8 situated at Maharaja Samuthiram Vilalge, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan (For R1 and R2) Spl.Govt.Pleader For Respondent-3: Mr.K.Balasubramani O R D E R The petitioner seeks to challenge an order passed by the Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur, dated 28.09.2011. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed by the Housing Board that the land acquired from the petitioner relating to Survey Nos.196/8, 196/3, 196/11, 196/7, 197/6 and 197/8, situated at Maharaja Samuthiram Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, cannot be returned back, as the lands are required for the integrated housing scheme and hence, his request cannot be considered. The said order came to be passed on the petitioner filing a writ petition before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 this Court being W.P.(MD)No.12945 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.10.2010. Against which, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2011. The Division Bench strangely gave a direction to the Housing Board to consider the petitioner's representation within a time frame. It is pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, dated 09.09.2011, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is once again before this Court. 2. In the Writ Petition, Notice of Motion was ordered. On notice, the respondents are represented by Standing Counsel Mr.K.Balasubramani. The contention raised by the petitioner was that since the representation has to be considered by the second respondent Managing Director, the 3rd respondent should not pass the order. A High Level Committee has been appointed by the State Government to recommend that the land of the petitioner should be released. 3. In earlier circumstances, in some other land owners' case, lands have been released. However, the counsel for the Housing Board produced a copy of the Plan approval, dated 04.07.2008, wherein they have proposed to build 14 houses. They have also produced a copy of the Patta and Adangal extracts, wherein, the name of the Housing Board already has entered in the land record. It is also stated that in Survey Nos.196/2, 196/5, 196/7, and 196/9, to an extent of 6.27 acres belonging to Housing Board. The Municipality has proposed a Tar Road, as an approach road and the communication sent by the Municipal Commissioner, Pattukottai, dated 06.06.2011, was also produced. The photographs showing the land in which houses have come up were also produced. 4. Under the said circumstances, this Court do not consider that any case made out to interfere with the impugned communication. The contention that only the Managing Director should pass orders, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Division Bench also directed the 3rd respondent should pass orders. Secondly, in a matter for re- conveyance of land under Section 48-B the State Government which alone can take a decision, depending upon the return of the land by the requisitional body like Housing Board. Even in such a situation, the State Government will have to explore the possibility of utilizing the land for any other public purpose and only no other public purpose is available, it can consider re-conveyance of the land to the original owner, after recovering the cost of compensation together with interest. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court before and after the introduction of Section 48-B. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and Ors reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 in paragraph 11 had observed as follows:- "...Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be challenged for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here." 8. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L.Chandrasekaran and Ors reported in 2010 (2) SCC 786, dealt with the scope of Section 48-B and has considered all the cases arising out of reconveyance. In paragraphs 28 and 29, it was observed as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "28. It need no emphasis that in exercise of power under Section 48-B of the Act, the Government can release the acquired land only till the same continues to vest in it and that too if it is satisfied that the acquired land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose. To put it differently, if the acquired land has already been transferred to other agency, the Government cannot exercise power under Section 48-B of the Act and re-convey the same to the original owner. In any case, the Government cannot be compelled to re- convey the land to the original owner if the same can be utilized for any public purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. (Emphasis added) 29. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal (supra). The question considered in that case was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of the acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant- Board. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court observed: (SCC pp.261-62, paras 13-16) "13.It is clearly pleaded by the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the scheme had not been suspended or abandoned and that the lands acquired are very much needed for the implementation of the scheme and the steps in that regard have already been taken. In the light of this position, it is not open to the Court to assume that the project has been abandoned merely because another piece of land in the adjacent village had been released from acquisition in the light of orders of the Court. It could not be assumed that the whole of the project had been abandoned or has become unworkable. It depends upon the purpose for which the land is acquired. As we see it, we find no impediment in the lands in question being utilised for the purpose of putting up a multi-storied building containing small flats, intended as the public purpose when the acquisition was notified. Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in proceeding as if the scheme stood abandoned. This was an unwarranted assumption on the part of the Court, which has no foundation in the pleadings and the materials produced in the case. The Court should have at least insisted on production of materials to substantiate a claim of abandonment. 14.We have already noticed that in the writ petition, there are no sufficient allegations justifying interference by the Court. Mere claim of possession by the writ petitioners is not a foundation on which the relief now granted could have been rested either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court. On the materials, no right to relief has been established by the writ petitioners. 15.We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value. In State of Kerala v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai (1997) 5 SCC 432 in a similar situation, this Court observed : (SCC p.433, para 4) "4.....The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting a higher value." 16.Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be challenged for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here. " 5. In view of the no case made out, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur. + 1 cc to Mr.K.Balasubramani, Advocate, SR No.36461 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Ramu, Advocate, SR No.36522 W.P.(MD)No.11492 of 2011 20.10.2011 MPK RJ/3.11.11 4p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/