IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.30425 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 1. M.Palanisamy 2. M.Chinnasamy 3. K.Nagaraj .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 12.10.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dhanasekaran For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Vijayakumar Addl.Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioners have approached this Court, by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the application dated 12.10.2008, vide which, petitioners have claimed for restoration of their lands, under provisions of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The petitioners claim to be co-owners of the land, measuring 1.69 acres in Survey No.13/A1 of Sulipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. The petitioners also claimed to have put up permanent houses and are living in the said place for many years, wherein, there are also 50 fully developed coconut trees. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The case of the petitioners in the affidavit is that acquisition proceedings of the land were initiated on 18.11.1999 and notification under Section 6 was passed on 27.12.1999, thereafter award was also ordered. The petitioners claim that they have not received any compensation so far. The petitioners claim that they are still in possession, therefore, are entitled to restoration of land under the provisions of Section 48-B, as no action has been taken by the respondents to utilize the land for public purpose till date. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. L.Chandrasekaran (Dead) By LRs and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 786, has been pleased to lay down that direction for release of acquired land under Section 48-B could only be given by the State Government i)if it is satisfied that the land is not required for the purpose, for which, it is acquired or for any other public purpose; ii)that the land continus to vest in the State Government. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, in view of transfer of the land to Tamil Nadu Housing Board, held that Division Bench could not have issued Mandamus, directing to reconvey the land to the respondents therein. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal and others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 255, was pleased to lay down that Section 48-B, as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu, has to be strictly construed and that the High Court cannot issue direction to the State to consider the writ petitioner's representation made under Section 48-B or to reconvey the land to them as acquisition is complete on passing of the award. 7. Keeping in view of the fact that the land of the petitioners was acquired as back as in the year 1999, it is only for the State Government to consider about utilisation of the land, but no case is made out for issuance of any direction under Section 48-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act for restoration of land to the petitioners. 8. Finding no merit in the petition, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ar To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.8091 W.P. No.30425 of 2008 MRD(CO) Eu 23.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/