Madras High Court
V. Kuppan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 February, 2013
Author: M. Jaichandren
Bench: M. Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 04-02-2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
W.P.Nos.25289 to 25291 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,2,2 & 2 of 2012
V. Kuppan ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.25289/2012
Smt. P. Ekavalli ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.25290/2012
A.S. Rajasekarappa ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.25291/2012
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Housing & Urban Development (L.A.2(1)Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chairman and Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035
3. The Executive Engineer &Administrative Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Vellore Housing Board Division
Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009
4. The District Collector
Office of the District Collector
Vellore 632 009
5. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Housing Neighbourhood Scheme
Ranipet 632 401
Vellore District ... Respondents
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari fied mandamus calling for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.164 dated 21-07-2008 passed by the 1st respondent permitting the 2nd respondent to withdraw its earlier resolution No.8.02 dated 24-06-1994 for re-conveyance of the lands to the ex-land owners and to proceed the Housing Scheme as decided by them in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in T.S.No.2060/1 for an extent of 50 cents, situated in Pakkupettai, Ambedkar Village, Wallajapet, Vellore District,(in W.P.No.25289 of 2012) T.S.No.2096 for an extent of 21 acres, T.S.No.2120 for an extent of 22 cents and T.S.No.2100 for an extent of 7 = cents towards her husband late Perumal situated in Pakkupettai, Ambedkar Village, Wallajapet, Vellore District,(in W.P.No.25290 of 2012) T.S.No.2123/2 for an extent of 6.59 Acres, situated in Pakkupettai, Ambedkar Village, Wallajapet, Vellore District (in W.P.No.25291 of 2012) and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-convey the lands under acquisition to the petitioner and re-possess him into his lands.
For petitioners :: Mr. V. Bhiman
for M/s. Sampath Kumar Associates
For respondents :: Mr. S. Gomathi Nayagam, AAG,
Assisted by V.M. Velumani, Spl.G.P.
For RR1,4 and 5
Mr. S. Gomathi Nayagam, AAG
Assisted by Mr. B Viveka Vanan for RR2&3
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions are similar in nature, a common order has been passed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
3. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Orders, made in G.O.Ms.No.164, dated 21-07-2008, permitting the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, the second respondent in the above writ petitions, to withdraw the earlier resolution, dated 24-06-1994, relating to the reconveyance of the lands in question to the erstwhile owners and to proceed with the housing scheme for which the lands had been acquired.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the lands in question had been acquired for the purpose of the housing scheme, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While so, by a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, passed in its meeting, held on 24-06-1994, it had been resolved to recommend to reconvey the lands to their erstwhile owners, as there was no proper access to the said lands, and as they were far away from the Highway concerned. Further, there was no sufficient demand for houses to be constructed in the area concerned and that Wallajah had not been included in the model town selected by the Government.
5. The learned counsel had further submitted that, based on the said resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioners have made several representations to the authorities concerned, to reconvey the lands in question, under Section 48-B of the Act. Whileso, the first respondent had passed the impugned orders in G.O.Ms.No.164, Housing and Urban Development (LA.2(1)) Department, dated 21-07-2008 resolving to withdraw the proposal to reconvey the lands to the ex-owners, by way of the earlier resolution, dated 24-06-1994. Aggrieved by the said Government Order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(i)Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Uma Maheswari Ramasamy (2011 (5) CTC 503)
(ii)W.P.Nos 23134 to 23136 of 2005 dated 19-11-2007 in Seeranga Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
6. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the requests made by the petitioners, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been rejected. Thereafter, 233 plots had been allotted to various persons, based on the impugned G.O.Ms.No.164 Housing and Urban Development (LA.2(1)) Department, dated 21-07-2008. He has further submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, based on the earlier resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994. He has further submitted that the lands which had been acquired from the petitioners are being utilised for the housing scheme proposed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In such circumstances, the petitioners have no right, whatsoever, to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, as per the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have no right to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, based on the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994.
8. It is a well settled position in law that the erstwhile owners of the lands which had been acquired can only make a representation for the reconveyance of the land, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if such lands are not required by the acquiring authority. However, it is clear that there is no vested right in them to claim that such lands should be reconveyed to them.
9. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited supra, cannot be held to be supporting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the lands in question is being used for the purpose of providing house sites, as per the housing scheme proposed earlier. It is also noted that 233 plots had already been allotted to third parties, who are not parties in the present writ petitions.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the above writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merits. Hence the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
04-02-2013 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No glp To
1. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Housing & Urban Development (L.A.2(1)Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai 600 035
3. The Executive Engineer &Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vellore Housing Board Division Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009
4. The District Collector Office of the District Collector Vellore 632 009
5. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing Neighbourhood Scheme Ranipet 632 401 Vellore District M. JAICHANDREN,J.
glp W.P.Nos.25289 to 25291 of 2012 04-02-2013