1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12550 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 M.G.Muhundharajan Rep.by its Power Agent O.V.K.Periyakaruppan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Revenue Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Secretary, Small Industries (SIC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, labour and Industrial Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 4.The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 5.The Chairman, Small Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO), Guindy, Chennai. 6.The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer), Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the 1st respondent impugned order dated 24.03.2011 in his proceeding in letter (per) No.32734/Ne/Ne1(1)2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate order in sprit of the Section 48(b) read with 16(b) of the Land Acquisition Amended Act 1996. For Petitioner : Mr.J.John For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Spl.Govt.Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the lands under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Heard Mr.J.John, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3.The petitioner was the owner of a land of an extent of 4 acres 43 cents in S.No.281/1 in Soorakulam Village, Sivaganga Taluk. The said land was acquired for the purpose of development of an industrial estate. The Notification under Section 4(1) was issued way back in 1963. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.1963. The Award was passed on 22.12.1964. 4.Contending that the lands remain unutilized for more than four decades, the petitioner came up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.39273 of 2003, on the file of this Court challenging the Notification under Section 4(1). The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 28.11.2003, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government for appropriate remedy under Section 48-B r/w Section 16-B of the Act. The operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as follows:- "4.However, if the land had not been utilised, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the State Government by filing the appropriate application under Section 48-B read with Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1996 (Act 16 of 1997). If any such application is filed, that would be considered by the Government on its own merit." 5.The petitioner consequently made representations to the respondents for considering his requests under Section 16-B r/w 48-B. The application was processed by the respondents. The 7th respondent herein sent a report to the District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga on 04.10.2004, indicating that the lands were not utilized and that they are kept vacant for the past 40 years. The Revenue Divisional Officer in fact recommended the case for return of the land to the land owners. 6.The District Revenue Officer in turn sent a report in June-2005, confirming the fact that the lands were not utilized and that they were kept vacant. He also recommended the resumption of land to the petitioner, after taking note of the transfer of a portion of the land to the Public Works Department under 'Periyar Water Improvement Scheme'. 7.Following the above report, the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration, sent a report dated 27.04.2007, requesting the Government to pass appropriate orders and take appropriate decision. 8.Thereafter the petitioner also made representations to the Government and the Government passed an order dated 10.11.2008, rejecting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the request of the petitioner for re-conveyance under Section 48-B r/w 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act. 9.Without challenging the said order of the Principal Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (C) Department, Chennai, dated 10.11.2008 by way of a writ petition, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, contending almost as though it was a challenge to the order passed by the other Department on the ground that the other Department had no jurisdiction or competence. On the said petition, the Government called for a report from the District Collector. In the meantime, the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, advertised for the allotment of the developed plots in the SIDCO Industrial Estate on out right sale basis. At about the same time, the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 24.03.2011, rejected the request of the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 10.The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are; (i) that when the lands are unutilized for the past more than 40 years for the purpose for which they were acquired, the petitioner has a right under Section 48-B. (ii) that the reports of the Revenue Division Officer, District Revenue Officer and the Commissioner for Land Administration were in favour of the resumption of the land to the petitioner, but the Government overlooked the same. and (iii) that without taking action under Section 16-B the rejection of the request under Section 48-B is illegal. 11. I have carefully considered the above submissions. 12.It is now well settled that once the land vests with the requisitioning body, the forfeiture of the land to the Government has to take place in terms of Section 16-B, if the authority for whose benefits the land was acquired, has not utilized it or the public purpose is not satisfied. Thereafter, the Government is entitled to put the properties to any kind of use. There cannot be any compulsion. Therefore, the first ground is rejected. 13. The liberty given in the earlier writ petition was, at a time when there was no authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court on the scope of Section 48-B. But, today it is not the position. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal {2007 (9) SCC 255}, the Supreme Court pointed out 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. This too can be done only for the market value that may be fetched for the property on the date of conveyance. The Supreme Court highlighted that the doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value. The Court also pointed out that Section 48-B is an exception to the general rule and that therefore, it has to be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms is required. Reiterating the same principles, the Supreme Court held in Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. L.Chandrasekaran {2010 (2) SCC 786}, that a release direction can be given only by the State Government if it is satisfied (i) that the land is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose and (ii) that the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 continues to vest in the State Government. Once the land is transferred to the Housing Board, a substantial portion whereof was used for housing scheme and public purposes, the Court cannot issue a Mandamus to reconvey the acquired land to the respondents. 14.The third contention that the recourse to Section 16-B has not been taken, cannot advance the case of the petitioner. Even admittedly, the lands were acquired for the purpose of an Industrial Estate. Today what is sought to be sold by the 5th respondent is only Industrial Plots. Therefore, the sale is not of a land which is unutilized. The Small Industries Development Corporation can only sell or lease the lands acquired for promoting an Industrial Estate. Therefore the rejection cannot be challenged on the ground that an order under Section 16-B was not passed first. 15.Therefore, I find no merits in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Secretary, Small Industries (SIC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, Labour and Industrial Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 4.The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 5.The Chairman, Small Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO), Guindy, Chennai. 6.The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer), Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai. + 1 cc to M/s.J.John, Advocate, SR No.38826 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.38499 W.P.(MD)No.12550 of 2011 08-11-2011 PMK/SVN RJ/9.12.11 (IT) 4p/10c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/