@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard both sides.
2. The petitioner is the resident of Sikarala Alli Village, Pennagaram Taluk. He has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a
direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 25.03.2009 regarding allotment of house sites for Arundhadhiyar community in
the alternative lands surrendered by the petitioner measuring 2.08 acres comprised in S. No. 496/2A and re-conveyance of their lands measuring
2.54 acres comprised in S. No. 502/2 back to the petitioner.
3. In the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice and pending the notice, this Court ordered status quo on
30.09.2009.
4. The third respondent has come forward with a petition being M.P. No. 2 of 2009 for vacating the status quo order, supported by a counter
affidavit. However, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on his own has come forward to offer the land to an extent of 2.54 acres in
the same village in S. No. 496/2A. Subsequent to his offer, a meeting of the beneficiaries was convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri with the petitioner on 08.02.2007. The beneficiaries have agreed to receive the offer made by the petitioner/land owner and it was
proposed after the transfer, appropriate recommendation should be made through the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to the State
Government and thereafter, the beneficiaries will be given necessary pattas. Since the respondents have not adhered to the minutes of the Peace
Committee meeting and also they did not consider the request for re-conveyance of the petitioner''s land, the present writ petition came to be filed.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, these facts were denied. It was stated that the land in Survey No. 502/02 to an extent of
2.24 hectares situated in Sikaralahalli village was acquired for the purpose of granting house sites to Arundhathiyar community. The land acquisition
proceedings were initiated during the year 1982 and a draft notification under the Central Act, 1/1984 was issued on 31.12.1982 and the same
was published in the Government Gazette on 27.12.1982. Section 5A enquiry was held on 14.02.1983 at Taluk office. Subsequently, draft
declaration was sent to the Government and the same was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1713 Social Welfare Department dated
30.05.1983.
7. After the award enquiry was conducted on 26.07.1983, an award was passed in Award No. 1/83/84 on 27.07.1983. Since the land owners
did not appear in the award enquiry, the compensation amount was deposited in Sub-Court, Dharmapuri at Krishangiri vide demand draft dated
03.08.1983 drawn on the State Bank of India, Krishnagiri payable to the Sub-Judge, Dharmapuri.
8. It was stated that the said land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the owners of lands before this Court in W.P. No. 8166 of 1983.
That writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.08.1993 and the acquisition proceedings became final. The possession of the land was taken
over on 21.02.1994 and house site pattas were issued to the beneficiaries by the Special Tahsildar, i.e., the third respondent. Since there was an
encroachment in the said land, the authorities took steps to remove the encroachers. The land owners filed O.S. No. 480/1983 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri to stay all the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Munsif did not grant any
interim order. It was thereafter, the writ petitions came to be filed before this Court which were dismissed.
9. It was stated that no doubt a Peace Committee meeting was held between the beneficiaries and the land owners on 18.12.2007. The suggestion
made by the petitioner was placed in the meeting of the beneficiaries and they were not willing to accept the alternate site in S. No. 496 which is
situated one km away from the lands in existing survey No. 502/2 which was acquired under the Act. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner
has come forward to file the present writ petition and obtained a status quo order.
10. The contention raised by the petitioner that there should be a re-conveyance of land on the ground that he was willing to offer an alternative
land cannot be countenanced by this Court for the simple reason that once an acquisition proceedings is initiated under the Central Act, and when
the Collector had made an award u/s 11, he can take possession of the land, which thereupon vest absolutely with the Government free from all
encumbrances. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that he is still the owner.
11. In the present case, the entire procedure have been gone through and compensation amount had also been deposited in the Sub-Court. The
challenge made by the land owners to the proceedings were also repelled by this Court. Therefore, there is no scope for the petitioner to contend
that he has right over the said land.
12. In the present case, as set out in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the award proceedings were completed as early as
27.7.1983 by passing a final award in Award No. 1/83-84. At the relevant time, the Central Act 1/1894 did not even have any provisions for re-
conveyance. In fact Section 48(B) to the Central Act was introduced only by the Tamil Nadu Act 16/97. Therefore the petitioner cannot ask for
re-conveyance either in law or in fact. Under the provisions of the amended Act of the year 1997 only Section 48(1) provides for relief to any land
owner in case Government withdraws from any such acquisition. Section 48(2) provides that the Collector shall determine the amount of
compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequences of the notice or any proceedings thereunder, shall pay such amount to
the person interested.
13. The Supreme Court vide its decision in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2602 dealt
with the scope of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraphs 10 and 11, it was observed as follows:
10. 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.
11. 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 and others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another, in a
similar situation, this Court observed:
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 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
higher value...
14. During the hearing of that case the introduction of Section 48-B by the State amended in to the Act was also brought to the notice of the
Court. In paragraphs 11 and 12, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
...Section 48B 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.
12. We are thus of the view that the writ petitioners, the contesting respondents, have not made out any case for interference by the Court or for
grant of any relief to them. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into the further contention raised on the scope of Section 48B of the Act,
whether the writ petitioners have established any claim to the lands, whether the re-conveyance can only be to the original owners and not to
others and whether if possession has already been made over to the Housing Board, the State could exercise its power under that provision. We
leave open those questions for the High Court to consider as and when the occasion arises on it being approached in the context of Section 48B of
the Act. Suffice it to say that the decision of the High Court in the Writ Petition in question is totally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
15. At the relevant time, it was also brought to the notice of this Court about the introduction of Section 48-B by the State. Construing that
provision also, the Supreme Court held that the scope of 48-B is very narrow and it has to be strictly construed. This Court in more than one case
has held that for applying the scope of Section 48-B there must be an opinion from the requisitioning authority that lands were not utilised by them.
When such lands were returned to the Government by the requisitioning authority, then the State will have to consider whether those lands can be
utuilised for any other public purpose. Only in such circumstances, the land can be returned to the original land owner after getting refund of the
compensation amounts paid.
16. In the present case, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit expressing their intention to retain the land. A specific averment in
paragraph 9 states that the beneficiaries are not willing to take the offer of any alternative land. Considering the fact that already house site pattas
were issued, there is no vested right on the petitioner to claim re-conveyance u/s 48. Further, 48-B itself came long after the acquisition
proceedings were over. Even assuming without admitting that Section 48-B is applicable to the case of the petitioner, still in the light of the stand
taken by the respondents, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.
17. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
