M. Ocha Thevar and M. Eswaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The petitioners seek re-conveyance of their lands on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board failed to utilise the acquired lands for a considerable period.

BRIEF FACTS:

The lands owned by the petitioners were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for launching a housing project in the name and style of ''Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme''. The draft notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''] was published on 14 June, 1991. After conducting the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made on 05 August, 1994. The Land Acquisition Officer passed awards on 05 August, 1994 vide Award No. 8/1994 [W.P.(MD) Nos. 1369, 263 and 993 of 2013] and on 17 November, 1994 in Award No. 11/1994 [W.P.(MD) No. 881 of 2013]. According to the petitioners, they are still in possession of the lands. It is the grievance of the petitioners that notwithstanding the passing of awards, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has not utilised the lands for any useful purpose. The lands are still lying vacant. Therefore, the petitioners wanted re-conveyance of the lands. The petitioners have submitted representations before the Government with a request to re-convey the lands. Since there was no follow-up action, the petitioners are before this Court.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer disputing the claim made by the petitioners. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the lands were acquired at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and after acquisition, the acquired lands were all handed over to the Housing Board. The Housing Board is in the process of utilising the lands for public purpose. Therefore, the Government cannot be directed to re-convey the lands to the erstwhile land owners.

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Housing Unit, in his counter-affidavit, contended that the possession of the subject lands were taken over by the Housing Board on 23 March, 1995. The award amount was deposited and it was only thereafter possession was taken. According to the Housing Board, the property was acquired for a comprehensive housing scheme. The Housing Board has already developed the lands and the proposal is to construct a Satellite City at Thoppur. The Housing Board wanted the lands for the project and as such, there is no question of re-conveyance.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

DISCUSSION:

The petitioners wanted a positive direction to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to re-convey the lands acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide Award No. 8/1994, dated 05 August, 1994 [W.P.(MD) Nos. 1369, 263 and 993 of 2013] and Award No. 11/1994, dated 17 November, 1994 [W.P.(MD) No. 881 of 2013]. The petitioners maintained that they are still in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said statement is specifically disputed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. According to the Housing Board, the possession was taken as early as on 23 March, 1995.

The core question is as to whether it is open to the erstwhile land owners to direct the Land Acquisition Body to re-convey the lands on the ground that the acquired lands were not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1997, provides that in case the Government is satisfied that the land vest in the Government is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner, who is willing to repay the amount paid to him. The provision very clearly stipulates that the Government should arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the land is no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired. The provision also gives an indication that the land vest in the Government alone can be re-conveyed. Therefore, a secondary question would arise that in case the land has already been handed over to the acquisition department, whether it is still open to the Government to form an opinion and to re-convey the land to the original owners.

THE LAW:

The question raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra, in view of the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

(i) The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Keeravani Ammal and Others, indicated that in case the scheme had not been suspended or abandoned by the Requisitioning Body and the lands acquired are very much needed for the implementation of the Scheme, it is not open to the Court to assume that the project has been abandoned and to direct for re-conveyance of the property. The Supreme Court further observed:

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.

(ii) The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. L. Chandrasekaran and Others, held that direction for reconveyance can be given only by the State Government and the Government should be satisfied that the land is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose and it continues to vest in the State Government. The Supreme Court observed:

It need no emphasis that in exercise of power u/s 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 pubic purpose. To put it differently, if the acquired land has already been transferred to other agency, the Government cannot exercise power u/s 48-B of the Act and reconvey the same to the original owner. In any case, the Government cannot be compelled to reconvey the land to the original owner if the same can be utilised for any public purpose other than the one for which it was acquired.

RESOLUTION:

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in its counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that they are in the process of developing a Satellite City at Thoppur. The Board have already approached the Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial Service Limited for conducting feasibility study. The Board has done all the preliminary work. Since the Tamil Nadu Housing Board very categorically stated that the land is required for the purpose for which it was acquired, there is no question of directing the Government to re-convey the land to the erstwhile land owners. The Supreme Court have very clearly stated that the Government or Requisitioning Body cannot be compelled to re-convey the lands to the original owners. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.