Madras High Court
Karuppanan @ Karan vs The Commissioner on 16 November, 2022
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.20063 of 2022
Karuppanan @ Karan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5.
2.The District Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department,
Madurai.
5.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District. ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/17
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to order dated 26.07.2022 on the file of the first respondent
in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15982/AaThi.7 and quashing the same and
praying for issuance of directions to the return and reconvey the unutilized
lands in S.No.66/12A of Sunnambur Village, Keeranur Village Group, Melur
Taluk, Madurai District to the extent of 0.10 Hectare obtained from the
petitioner under the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.813/1989
dated 10.09.1992.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.Kannan
For Respondents :Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been preferred to call for the records pertaining to
order dated 26.07.2022 on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.15982/AaThi.7 and quashing the same and praying for issuance of
directions to return and reconvey the unutilized lands in S.No.66/12A of
Sunnambur Village, Keeranur Village Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District to
an extent of 0.10 Hectare obtained from the petitioner under the proceedings of
the first respondent in Na.Ka.813/1989 dated 10.09.1992.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in
the year 1977 the land situated in S.No.66/12A of Sunnambur Village, Keeranur
Village Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District to an extent of 0.10 Hectare was
purchased by the petitioner's father Veeranan. On 15.11.1996 his father died
and after demise of his father, the petitioner is enjoying the said land till date.
In the meantime, he was informed that in the year 1992 the above said land was
acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of issuing free house site patta
to the SC/ST proples through his proceedings in Na.Ka.813/1989 dated
10.09.1992. Thereafter, the respondents did not take any action to construct
the free house in the said land. The respondents department have also dropped
further action. The respondents herein had also announced that the lands
acquired for the Welfare of the SC/ST people if not utilized for that purpose
will be re-conveyed to the original owners. The scheme thus proposed by the
respondents department was not executed and the lands were kept unused and
all the schemes are dropped. Hence, the respondents department did not require
any land. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed unnecessary
and are infructuous. Hence, the petitioner has preferred an application to the
first respondent on 02.05.2019 for the exclusion of his land from the Land
Acquisition proceedings. The lands are not used by the respondents
Department and recently the government also announced that the unused lands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
will be reconveyed to the original owners. By applying the above ratio, he is
entitled for the exclusion of his land from the Land Acquisition proceedings.
3. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.12971
of 2019 praying to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the
application preferred by the petitioner, dated 02.05.2019 to return back the
lands of the petitioner in S.No.66/12A of Sunnambur Village, Keeranur Village
Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District to an extent of 0.10 Hectare. This Court,
by order dated 08.07.2019 directed the first respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner therein, dated 02.05.2019 and decide such plea
raised by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. He would further submit that the petitioner had addressed a letter on
24.07.2019 enclosing a copy of the order dated 08.07.2019. Despite the clear
directions from this Court to consider and pass orders on his application, dated
02.05.2019 within a period of eight weeks I.e., on or before 18.09.2019, the
first respondent did not comply with the directions of this Court and failed to
take any steps to comply with the orders of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition on Contempt Petition (MD)No.364 of 2020 before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
Court. When the contempt petition is pending, the first respondent passed
orders dated 26.07.2022 in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15982/AaThi.7
rejecting his application for reconveyance of land acquired in the year 1992.
The said contempt petition was disposed of by order dated 20.09.2022 and
liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings and order
of the first respondent.
5. He would further submit that the petitioner is being denied the benefit
that accrues to land owners on account of Section 101 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 which reads as follows:-
“101.Return of Unutilised land: When any land acquired
under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the
date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the
original owner or owners of their heirs, as the case may be, or to the
Land Bank of the appropriate Government by revision in the manner
as any be prescribed by the appropriate Government.”
The impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.07.2022 is under
challenge in this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
6. The first respondent in the impugned order it is stated that the said land
was acquired in the year No.3/92-93 and converted into Adi Dravidar Natham
in the village accounts. Award amount of Rs.48,311/- has been deposited
before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai under Section 30(2) of the Act.
Totally, 93 persons were given free house plots, in which, 32 persons were
given free house plots in the first phase on 18.01.1993 and 61 persons in the
second phase on 14.12.1998. At present, 27 persons are living in the said Adi
Dravidar Natham as the beneficiaries have got free house plots. Further, 5
persons are doing construction work. For distributing the drinking water to
the public, the department of Rural Development has built an Over Head
Drinking Water Reservoir. More over, the existing slum-dwellers have already
acquired land and being given a house plot and a bath tub has been built and
used for the convenience of the slum-dwellers living there. Actions are also
being taken to select new beneficiaries and to issue house titles for the houses
that are not being used in the provided houses. In this situation, the petitioner
has already issued a house plot and a bath tub has been set up in the area and is
being used by the Adi Dravidar people and hence, there is no chance to return
the plot of land to the land owners. In this regard, notice under Section 3(1)
and 5(1),5(2) was issued to the land owners to acquire the proposed field and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
the petitioner did not raise any objection when the land was acquired and now,
it is not appropriate to demand the return of the land. Therefore, the petitioner
is informed that there is no Government Rule or Act to return the land that was
acquired by the Adi Dravidar Land Department.
7. Section 48-B of the Act does not confer any right to the parties to
claim reconveyance. This provision merely empowers the Government to
reconvey, provided, the conditions specified in the said Section are fulfilled.
The Government has now come up with a stand that the House Site Patta is
going to be issued to the persons belonging to Adi Dravidar. Once such a stand
is taken by the Government, the request made by the petitioner pales into
insignificance and Section 48-B of the Act becomes inoperational. It will be
relevant to take note of the following judgments in this regard.
➢ V.Chandrasekaran and another vs. Administrative Officer and others
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133, wherein the relevant portions are
extracted hereunder:
“Land once vested in the Government – whether can be
divested:
25. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is
vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be
divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even
if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
period. (Vide: Avadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar &. Ors.,;
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra); Allahabad
Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., , M.
Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., ; and
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar & Ors., ).
26. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the
tenure holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the
purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose
either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned
under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section
21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land
has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all
encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P.
Sharma,; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shri
Avinash Sharma,; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors.,;
Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v. Shri Kishan & Ors.; and
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh
Singh & Ors.
27. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has been
considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit and Vegetable
Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957
SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting'
varies as per the context of the Statute, under which the
property vests. So far as the vesting under Sections 16 and 17
of the Act is concerned, the Court held as under.-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
“19......In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and
17, the property acquired becomes the property of
Government without any condition or ; limitations either
as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear
that vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose
or limited duration ”
28. In Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, in a similar situation, this Court held
as under:
“5....Once the original acquisition is valid and title
has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land
is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis
for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of
law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided
because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a
public purpose other than the one stated in the
….declaration ”
29. Similarly, in State of Kerala & Anr. v. M. Bhaskaran
Pillai & Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 432, this Court held as under:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better
utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive
Principles of the Constitution. ”
30. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Syed
Akbar (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held
that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be
divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be
reconveyed to the persons- interested/tenure holders, and that
therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure
holder, does not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan,;
Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra,; State
of Kerala & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr.,; Printers
(Mysore) . Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors.; Bangalore
Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, ; and Delhi Airtech
Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
31. In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to
mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State,
free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land
owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for
which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes
persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a
right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the
acquisition proceeding is itself challenged.....”
➢ Tamil Nadu Arasu Kooturuvuthurai Oanuyalargal Sangam rep. by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
General Secretary P.Soundarrajan & others vs.M.R.Srinivasan and
others reported in 2015 SCC Online Mad 8195 and the relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“114. It must also be remembered that under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, a land may be acquired for any public
purpose including the purpose of providing housing to a
section of the population. The land owner was conferred a
very limited right under the Madras City Improvement Trust
Act and under the Madras State Housing Board Act. It was a
pre-emptive right to purchase the land at a rate as fixed by the
Board and that too only after making an advertisement in a
newspaper to see that the amount offered by the original
owner is not less than the offers made by outsiders. This
facility or limited right for the land owner was not available in
the Land Acquisition Act itself but available only in cases
where the acquisition was for the purposes of the Madras City
Improvement Trust or the Madras State Housing Board.
115. However, in 1997 the State Legislature thought fit
to extend a similar benefit, to all land owners, irrespective of
whether the acquisition was for carrying out the purposes of
the Madras City Improvement Trust Act or the Madras State
Housing Board Act. Hence the Legislature amended the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 itself under Tamil Nadu Amendment Act
XVI of 1997, incorporating Section 48-B.
116. Thus, the insertion of Section 48B into the Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
Acquisition Act, 1894, under Tamilnadu Amendment Act 16 of
1997, was nothing but an attempt to import into the Central
Enactment, a provision similar to Section 72 of The Madras
State Housing Board Act, 1961. Unless this historical reason
is taken note of, it would not be possible to understand the
legislative intent behind Section 48B.
117. Keeping in mind, the genesis of Section 48-B, let us
take a plain and fresh look at Section 48-B. Though the
"Statement of Objects and Reasons" to the Tamil Nadu Act
XVI of 1997 merely states that the object of incorporating
Section 48-B was to fill up the vacuum in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, as it did not contain a provision for re-conveyance,
the motive force behind the insertion of Section 48-B was to
provide a level playing field between the acquisition for the
purpose of Housing Board and acquisition for other purposes.
118. But nevertheless, Section 48-B was worded in such
a manner that for the exercise of the power conferred therein,
the Government should be satisfied that the acquired land was
not required (i) either for the purpose for which it was
acquired; (ii) or for any other public purpose. A plain reading
of Section 48-B would disclose the following essential
features.
(A) Section 48-B is not worded in such a manner
conferring an indefeasible right upon the original owner
to seek a re-conveyance.
(B) The section is also not worded in such a manner as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
to impose an indefensible obligation upon the State, to
re-convey the land necessarily.
(C)Section 48-B does not use the expression “Where the
land is not put to use for the purpose for which it was
acquired”. The section uses the expression “Where ……
the land ……is not required” for the purpose for which
it was acquired or for any other public purpose”.
(D)The fact that the land had not been put to use for the
purpose for which it was acquired (even if true in a
given case), would not lead to the automatic
presumption that the land was not required either for the
purpose for which it was acquired or for any other
purpose.
(E) The true test for the application of Section 48-B, is
only to see if the land is required for the purpose for
which it was acquired or for any other public purpose.
The plain language of Section 48-B does not call for the
application of any test to see if the land had actually
been put to use for the purpose for which it was
acquired.
119. Apart from the fact that the foregoing principles
could be culled out even from the plain language of Section
48-B, it could be seen that those principles are in sync with the
law laid down by the Supreme Court. On the right of the land
owner to seek re-conveyance, the Supreme Court held in
Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh [(2003) 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
SCC 335], that “if the land was not used for the purpose for
which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to
take action, but that did not confer any right on the
respondents to ask for restitution of the land”.
120. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal
[2008-1-L.W. 15; (2007) 9 SCC 255], the Supreme Court
cautioned in para 16 that “Section 48-B is an exception to the
Rule and that such a provision had to be strictly construed and
strict compliance with its terms insisted upon”. As a matter of
fact, the Supreme Court expressed doubts about the validity of
Section 48-B, but did not deal with the same as there was no
challenge to it. A challenge to the validity of Section 48-B was
made by a non-Governmental organization but the challenge
was rejected recently by the first Bench of this Court in Anti-
Corruption Movement v. The Chief Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu [2015-2-L.W. 97; 2015 (2) CTC 225],
121. The decision in Keeravani Ammal was quoted with
approval in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran
[(2010) 2 SCC 786], In para 28 of the report, the Supreme
Court observed in this case that “the Government cannot be
compelled to reconvey the land to the original owner if the
same can be utilized for any public purpose other than the one
for which it was acquired”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
122. On the question whether the land once vested in the
Government could be divested, the Supreme Court held in
para 26 of the report in V. Chandrasekaran v.Administrative
Officer [2012-5-L.W. 724; (2012) 12 SCC 133], that a land
once acquired cannot be restored to the owners, even if it is
not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose either.
123. Therefore, it is clear that the original land owners
do not acquire a right merely because the acquired land is not
used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose either. This is the general rule. The exception to
this rule is in Section 48-B. But this exception also, as we have
pointed out earlier, does not apply to all types of cases where
the acquired land is not used for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other purpose. The exception under
Section 48-B applies only to cases where the acquired land is
not at all required either for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other purpose.”
8. In view of the above discussion and settled proposition, this Court
does not find any legal right for the petitioner to seek for reconveyance of the
land, more particularly, when the State has already initiated steps to use the
lands for public purpose for issuing 'House Site Patta' to persons belonging to
Adi Dravidar and hence, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus and accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
the present Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
To
1.The Commissioner,
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The District Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department,
Madurai.
5.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
am
W.P(MD)No.25935 of 2022
16.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
