Madras High Court
N. Ramasamy, R. Shanmugham, V.R. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its ... on 9 August, 2002
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16-11-99, rejecting their request for re-conveyance of their land acquired for the purpose of housing scheme at Coimbatore, the petitioners numbering 15 have filed W.P.No. 2076 of 2000 on various grounds to quash the said proceedings and direct the first respondent-Government to release/exempt the properties of the petitioners in S.F.Nos. 186, 188, 282, 283, 284, 284/1, 284/2, 285/1, 285/2, 286, 286/1, 286/2, 287, 287/2, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 295, 295/1 and 295/2 of Koundampalayam village, Coimbatore District and in S.F.No. 430 Telungupalayam village, Coimbatore District from the land acquisition proceedings.
2. Questioning the very same Government Order and praying for similar direction, R. Savithiri and two others have preferred W.P.No. 12363 of 2001. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:
The petitioners are all land owners in Goundampalayam village, Coimbatore Taluk and District situated in Survey Nos. 186, 188, 282, 283, 284,284/1, 284/2, 285/1, 285/2, 286, 286/1, 286/2, 287, 287/2, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 295, 295/1 and 295/2 and Telungupalayam S.F.No. 430 and they are all adjoining and continuous owners of the property and these lands were sought to be acquired by the Housing and Urban Development Department. By constructing pucca houses, they are living in the land for time immemorial. Most of the petitioners are illiterate and they are not aware of the land acquisition proceedings. Only at a later stage they came to know that their lands were sought to be acquired by Housing Department for implementation of the housing scheme; accordingly they filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 8361/88 challenging the acquisition proceedings. By Order dated 29-7-97, this Court disposed of the said writ petition along with two other writ petitions with a direction to the petitioners to make an application to the Housing Board within 4 weeks seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. In the same order, this Court further observed that on such application being made, the Housing Board shall consider the requests of the writ petitioners and take a decision in terms of resolution No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86. The Court has granted three months' time to the Housing Board to dispose of the representation. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1300 to 1302/97 dated 21-10-97. Pursuant to the said direction, they made a representation. Without considering their representation and giving personal hearing, by order dated 16-11-99, the Government of Tamil Nadu, first respondent herein, passed the impugned order, rejecting their request of reconveyance. Hence the present writ petitions.
3. Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit for first respondent disputing various averments made by the petitioners. It is stated that at the instance of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring an extent of 159.04 acres in Goundampalayam village of Coimbatore North Taluk. After following the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder and after giving adequate opportunity to all the land owners and the persons interested, the land acquisition officer passed awards on various dates. Pursuant to the acquisition, the Government considered the same in consultation with the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. At the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme at Coimbatore was formulated for construction of houses to low income and middle income group people. The petitioners' lands are situated in the vantage point in the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme. As the exclusion of the petitioners' land will affect the comprehensive nature of the scheme, their representations were considered and rejected by the Government.
4. Tamil Nadu Housing Board-third respondent in W.P.No. 12363 of 2001 has filed a counter affidavit highlighting the strict compliance of the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder. They also explained that the Board's resolution No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86 is not connected to this land acquisition subject, but it relates to availing loan from Hudco for E.W.S. Houses at Mogappair, Chennai. However, there is another Board's resolution No.67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 in respect of Valasaravakkam, Chennai Scheme, but the Government have not taken any decision on the resolution passed by them and no orders have been passed so far and, therefore, as on date, there is no legal sanctity on the Board's resolution.
5. Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests Department, impleaded as 4th respondent in W.P.No.12363/2001 has also filed an affidavit informing this Court that pursuant to the decision taken by Botanical Survey of India, at the request of the Ministry, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by order dated 10-1-2001, allotted lands to an extent of 2.09 Acres at Vadavalli village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore and the Ministry had paid a total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,42,964/-. The Ministry has parted with the entire sale consideration and they have also taken possession of the allotted premises as early as on 8-8-2001. The said lands were purchased by the Ministry for the purpose of putting up residential accommodation for its employees and after taking possession of the lands, the department has initiated action for plan approval from the appropriate authorities and has also spent huge amount towards planning of the project and barbed wire fencing around the premises.
6. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State Government.
7. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, after taking me through the earlier order of this Court dated 29-7-97 in W.P.Nos. 8361 of 88 etc., batch, would contend that the first respondent committed an error in not complying with the positive direction issued therein. He also contended that the Government or the Housing Board ought to have given a reasonable opportunity of representation before chossing to reject the claim after a period of two years. On the other hand, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswami, learned Additional Advocate General, after drawing my attention to the ultimate decision of this Court, namely, dismissal of the writ petitions with a direction and observation, contended that pursuant to the direction, the petitioners/land owners made a representation to the Government, and that the Government after consultation with the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, came to the conclusion that the land in question is needed for completion of the scheme and the same cannot be excluded, and rightly rejected their application. He also contended that the correct resolution of the Housing Board is resolution No. 67/86. Since the same is not a general resolution applicable to all land owners and is confined to acquisition of land in respect of Valasaravakkam, Chennai scheme, the same has no bearing with the request of the petitioners. Further, according to him, the said resolution of the Housing Board has not been approved by the Government. Hence, it has no legal sanctity.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
9. Before considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that in these writ petitions the petitioners are not challenging the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, in the earlier round of litigation, P.D. Dinakaran, J. in W.P.Nos. 8361/88, 6236/89 and 8109/89, after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. L. Krishnan and others (1996--S.C. 497) as well as a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.Nos. 508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996 dismissed all the writ petitions on 29-7-97. However, he made an observation giving liberty to the petitioners to make an application to the Housing Board seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. Since the controversy rests on the said observation, it is relevant to refer the same: (para 13) "13. In the light of the above decisions, in and the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996, I find the above writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with the observation that if the writ petitioners satisfy the requirements of resolution No.7/86 dated 2-7-1986 passed by the Housing Board it is for the petitioners to make an application seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings. In such event, the Housing Board shall consider such requests of the writ petitioners and take a decision in terms of resolution No. 7/86 dated 2-7-1986. The petitioners shall make such representation to the Housing Board for reconveyance within four weeks from today and the same shall be disposed of by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of the representation."
It is also not disputed that the said order of the learned Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1300 to 1302 of 97 dated 21-10-1997. While confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench has extended the time for making the representation to the authority concerned by another six weeks. In the meanwhile the petitioners made a joint representation to the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai-9 and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-35 seeking reconveyance of their land. Apart from the general representation dated 25-9-97, the petitioners have also made individual representation on 26-9-97. The individual representations have been made to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing Department and Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Board, Coimbatore. In all the individual representation, they prayed for exclusion of their land from the acquisition. The common representation dated 25-9-97 and the individual representation dated 26-9-97 find a place at pages 19 to 26 of the typed-set of papers filed along with the writ petition. Though in the common representation, they prayed for reconveyance of their land in question, in the individual representation, they prayed for exclusion of their land from the scheme area.
10. On receipt of the representation of the petitioners, the Government-Housing Department, after referring the relevant resolution, namely, resolution No. 67/6 - 86 dated 2-7-86 of the Tamilnadu Housing Board and in the light of the fact that the Government have not taken any decision regarding the same, after considering the fact that the exclusion of the petitioners' land will affect the comprehensive nature of the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme, rejected their request.
11. Now I shall consider the direction of this Court with reference to the resolution of the Housing Board. In the order of the learned single Judge, it is stated that in the event of petitioners' satisfying the requirement of resolution 7/86 dated 2-7-86 passed by the Housing Board on making an application of the petitioners, the Housing Board shall consider such request and take a decision in terms of the said resolution. Admittedly, resolution No. 7/86 dated 2-7-86 has nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings. The correct resolution is No. 67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 and the same had been passed in respect of Valasarkam Chennai Scheme giving certain reliefs to persons having constructed houses in the scheme area. However, it is to be noted that till date the Government have not taken any decision or approved the said resolution. In such a circumstance, inasmuch as no orders have been passed so far, as rightly pointed out, there is no legal sanctity on the Board's resolution. Merely because there is a reference to the said resolution in the earlier orders, in the light of the fact that first of all the correct resolution had not been brought to the notice of the Court and consequently even the correct resolution yet to be approved or accepted by the Government, there is no legal sanctity on the said resolution. Learned Additional Advocate General has also brought to my notice a copy of the resolution No. 67/6-86 dated 2-7-86. As stated earlier, the said resolution relates to the lands acquired in Valasaravakkam village. The resolution of the Housing Board was to the effect that the entire extent of land in Valasaravakkam village notified for acquisition as per declaration under Section 6 of the Act may be acquired inclusive of building which have come up after 4 (1) Notification and that the administrative and development charges may be collected from the respective land owners after allotting the same under ex-owners category to avoid unnecessary hardship. No doubt, in the same resolution, it is stated that similar procedure may be adopted in various Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes. The Board accepted the resolution on 11-6-86. However, as rightly pointed out, the same has not been approved or accepted by the Government till date. In the light of the said position and inasmuch as it is not a general resolution applicable to all the land owners whose lands were acquired by the Housing Board, I am of the view that the respondents cannot be compelled to apply and implement the said resolution to some other scheme namely the Anna Nagar Scheme at Coimbatore. Even otherwise, on receipt of common and individual representations from the petitioners, the Housing Department of Government of Tamil Nadu after getting report from the requisitioning body regarding feasibility, came to the conclusion that since the petitioners' lands are situated in the vantage point in the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme and that the exclusion of their lands will affect the comprehensive nature of the scheme, rejected their request. Though Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order of the Government is not in accordance with the specific direction of the learned Judge, in the light of the fact that the resolution No.67/6-86 dated 2-7-86 of the Housing Board does not relate to Anna Nagar Scheme, Coimbatore, but it relates to Valasaravakkam scheme and not approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu till date, that the petitioners have given representations not only to the Housing Board, but also to the Housing department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and that the Government, after considering all these aspects including the relevant facts and circumstances, have rejected their representations, I do not find any substance in the said contention. No doubt, even though the learned senior counsel has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of T.N. etc., v. V. Pramela Rajaram and others (1996 W.L.R. 761) and a decision of K. Govindarajan, J. in W.P.No.8512/2000 dated 19-7-2000, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the direction in those decisions are not helpful to the petitioners' case. I have already referred to the fact that in the individual representation, the petitioners have prayed for exclusion of their lands from the acquisition proceedings, and only in the joint representation they made a prayer for reconveyance. I have already referred to the fact that this Court has dismissed their earlier writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. Though the Government have power to exempt a particular land from the Scheme area, in the light of the report of the Housing Board that the exclusion of the petitioners' land will affect the comprehensive nature of the scheme, I am of the view that this Court cannot issue mandamus either to release or exempt the properties of the petitioners as claimed in these writ petitions. Further, pursuant to the request made by the Botanical Survey of India which is a department under Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has alloted lands to an extent of 2.09 Acres at Vadavalli village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore and the Ministry had paid a total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,42,964/- and they have also taken possession of the allotted premises as early as on 8-3-2001. Pursuant to the same, it is stated that the Ministry are in the process of finalising tenders and at the stage of awarding the work to the successful tenderer for the construction of residential accommodation and because of the order of this Court, they are not in a position to award contract to the successful tenderer.
12. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent; consequently both the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
The interim stay granted in W.M.P.No. 18118/2001 is vacated. W.M.P.No. 18119/2001, W.V.M.P.Nos. 348 and 625 of 2002 are closed.