IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.08..2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. A.K. GANGULY, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA M.P. No.2 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008 1. G.V. Krishna Setty 2. G.V. Rajagopal Setty 3. G.K. Prekumar 4. A.K. Dwarkanath 5. A.K. Harinath 6. A.K. Subramaniam 7. A.S. Nagaraja Gupta 8. A.S. Padmanabha Gupta .. Appellants/Petitioners [Cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 9.6.2008 made in M.P. No.1 of 2008 in W.A. SR. No.29065 of 2008] versus 1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Chennai-35. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Region, Vellore-9. 4. The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Bagalur Road, Hosur-109. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Hosur. 6. M. Jaganathan 7. M. Kishore Kumar 8. K.S. Hasmukh Patel 9. S. Lajapathy Reddiyar (Kanjam) 10. A.V. Balasubramaniam 11. S. Shanthi 12. S. Moorthy 13. B. Latha 14. C. Saradhambal .. Respondents - - - - - Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 10.9.2005 made in W.P. No.9609 of 2004. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for certiorari man to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the 1st respondent namely the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Secretariat, Chennai in letter No. 25305/LA2/(2)/03-3 dated 11.2.2004 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to retransfer the land which has not been utilized for the housing Scheme out of 2.10 acres in S.No.315, Hosur village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District under section 48-B of L.A act as amended by the L.A (T.N) Act 1996 (Act XIV of 1997) to the petitioner. - - - - - For Appellants : M/s. Gupta & Ravi For Respondents-1 & 5 : Mr. J. Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader For Respondents-2 to 4 : Mr. K. Chelladurai For Respondents-11 to 13: Mr. S. Kumar (Respondent-6 Deceased) J U D G M E N T ( Delivered by The Honourable the Chief Justice ) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. M.P. No.2 of 2008 has been filed for condonation of delay of 903 days in the presentation of the appeal. The explanation which has been offered in the petition is that the writ petitioners changed the vakalatnama of the advocate who initially represented them and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gave it in favour of another advocate. After doing that, the writ petitioners virtually did not take any step in the matter and about four years after the writ petition was filed, some enquiry was made about this case. Such enquiry being made on 3.3.2008, the writ petitioners came to know that the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.9.2005. This is the explanation given in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. However, since the explanation has been given referring to some laches on the part of the lawyer, we are condoning the delay and M.P. No.2 of 2008 is ordered as prayed for. 3. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find that the impugned order which was passed by the learned Judge of the writ court disposing of the writ petition runs as follows :- "The request made by the writ petitioners to exclude the lands from the acquisition proceedings stands rejected. Perused the impugned order. It shows that the acquired lands, after the award, have been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as early as on 9.4.1986 and the entire extent of land had been utilised as mentioned in the impugned order. To get exclusion of the land under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land must continue to vest with the Government and the purpose for which the land was acquired should not subsist. Since both the material aspects are absent in this case, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, it is sustained and the writ petition stands dismissed." 4. From the materials available on record, it appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired land of the writ petitioners, the appellants herein, measuring an extent of 2.10 acres, for the purpose of construction of houses under the Hosur Neighbourhood Scheme by issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 13.9.1985. Award No.1 of 1985 came to be passed on 14.2.1986 and possession of the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 9.4.1986. Aggrieved by the said acquisition, the appellants earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No.24008 of 2003, in which the appellants made a prayer for re-transfer of the acquired land. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 8.9.2003 with a direction that the application of the appellants under Section 48-B of the said Act may be considered and orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be passed on the same within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereupon, the representation of the appellants was disposed of by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department by order dated 11.2.2004. By the said order, the Secretary to Government, while rejecting the representation of the appellants, stated that their application under Section 48-B of the Act has been examined in consultation with the requisitioning body, viz. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it was found that the land measuring 2.10 acres in Survey No.315, Hosur Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District was acquired under Award No.1/1985 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has taken over possession of the land on 9.4.1986 and thereafter, the said land has been utilised. The details of such utilisation were also mentioned in the said order, which are set out hereunder :- Theatre site 52E (sold by auction) 3345.00 sq.m. OHT 52F 720.00 sq.m. Channel 52D 2824.00 sq.m. Road 24 metre and 9 metre wide 1608.83 sq.m. ------------------ Total 8496.33 sq.m. ------------------ (or) 2.10 acres ------------------ After giving such details, the Secretary to Government has stated in his order that the entire extent of the land of 2.10 acres has been fully utilised and therefore, the request of the appellants for re-conveyance cannot be complied with. 5. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1997). The said section runs as follows :- "48-B. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases.–- Where the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1- A) and (2) of section 23, if any, paid under this Act." From a perusal of the said section, it appears that when the Government is satisfied that the land which vests in the Government under the said Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under the Act for the acquisition of such land. 6. In the instant case, from the order of the Secretary to Government referred to above, it appears that the entire land has been utilised and particulars thereof have also been furnished. 7. In the background of these facts, it is difficult for this Court to entertain the prayer of the appellants for re- conveyance. It may be noted in this connection that Section 48- B of the said Act does not give the appellants any right to claim re-conveyance. The said section merely empowers the Government to re-convey, provided the conditions specified in the said section are fulfilled. In the instant case, pursuant to the Court's order on the writ petition filed by the appellants, the Secretary to Government has considered the matter and disposed of the representation of the appellants by a reasoned order, giving particulars thereof. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to go behind this order. Learned counsel for the appellants is trying to assert that the particulars given in the said order are factually incorrect. It is difficult for this Court to reopen the said proceeding which was concluded by Award No.1 of 1985 and the taking over of the possession of the land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 9.4.1986. So, after a gap of 22 years, it is not prudent for a writ court to enter into such factual controversy. Learned counsel for the Housing Board also submits that the land of the appellants has been utilised in the manner in which it has been stated in the order of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 11.2.2004. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Ab Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Chennai-35. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Region, Vellore-9. 4. The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Bagalur Road, Hosur-109. 5. The Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Hosur. SSN(CO) SR/19.8.2008 M.P. No.2 of 2008 Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/