Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Gandhimathi on 3 August, 2023
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
W.A.No.596 of 2017
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 035.
2.The Executive Engineer/
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Salem Housing Unit,
Salem-636008 ... Appellants
versus
1. Gandhimathi
2.Brindhvathi
3.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -600 009. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order dated 05.01.2015 in W.P. No.6118 of 2013.
W.A.No.597 of 2017
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 035.
2.The Executive Engineer/
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Salem Housing Unit,
Salem-636008 ... Appellants
versus
1. D.Namachivayam
2. D.Srinivasan
3.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -600 009. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order dated 05.01.2015 in W.P. No.6119 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
W.A.No.598 of 2017
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 035.
2.The Executive Engineer/
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Salem Housing Unit,
Salem-636008 ... Appellants
versus
1. Manokaran
2.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -600 009. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order dated 05.01.2015 in W.P. No.6120 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapaul,
Standing Counsel (TNHB)
(in all Writ Appeals)
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prakasam
for first respondent
in W.A.No.598 of 2017
in W.A.Nos.596 and 597 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
Mr.K.Tippusultan
Government Advocate
for second respondent
(in W.A.No.598 of 2017)
for third respondent
in W.A.Nos.596 and 597 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Since the issue involved in all the writ appeals is one and the
same, a common order is passed in all the writ appeals.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ appeals
are as follows:
2.1.The first and second respondents respectively herein are the
original writ petitioners. The original writ petitioners filed WP
Nos.6118, 6119 and 6120 of 2013 for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to Letter
No.Ni.A.1/7337/79 dated 25.02.2013 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
reconvey the land comprised in S.No.83/3, 82/1 and 83/3 in
Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk & District to the respective
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
2.2. It is the case of the original writ petitioners that they are the
owners of the respective lands at Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem
Taluk. The Government of Tamil Nadu sought to acquire the said lands
for the purpose of implementing housing scheme through the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board. The Government issued notification under
Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act,(hereinafter
referred to as the Old Act, 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.371, Housing and
Urban Development Department, dated 03.06.1981 and
G.O.Ms.No.455, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
23.06.1981 and later passed declaration under Section 6 of the of the
Old Act, 1984 vide order dated 12.06.1984 and 07.07.1984. Since the
acquired lands have not been used by the Government for more than
two decades, the petitioners gave a written representation dated
11.01.2013 to the first respondent Government, for re-conveyance of
the land under Section 48(b) of the Old Act, 1894. After receipt of the
said representations, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who does not
have any power or jurisdiction to reject the representations as per
Section 48 (b) of the Old Act, 1894, rejected the representations of the
petitioners. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed an order
dated 25.02.2013 rejecting the request for re-conveyance of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
land. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, the petitioners had filed the writ petitions, seeking re-
conveyance of the land under Section 48(b) of the Old Act, 1984.
2.3.The learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petitions by order
dated, 05.01.2015, on the ground that if the land is not utilized for the
purpose for which it was acquired for a very long time, and if no
physical possession of the land was taken by the Housing Board, then
the landowners are entitled to get an order from the Government for
re-conveying their land. The learned Single Judge also held that the
petitioners are entitled to get remedy under Section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, (hereinafter referred to as the
New Act 30 of 2013). As against the said orders, the present Writ
appeals are filed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Housing Board
submitted that when the relief sought for in the writ petitions was for
re-conveying the respective portion of the land to the land owners
therein under Section 48 (b) of the Old Act, 1894, the Writ Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
granted relief by invoking the provisions under Section 24(2) of the
New Act 30 of 2013. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that
Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013, would come into operation in
cases where award has been passed under the Old Act, 1894, five
years or more prior to the commencement of New Act 30 of 2013,
where either physical possession has not been taken or compensation
has not been paid. The Learned Standing Counsel also submits that in
the case on hand, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of
2013 are not applicable as the land has already been taken possession
and compensation amount has also been either paid or deposited into
Court. Learned Standing Counsel further argues that as the acquired
land has already been transferred to the Housing Board, the
Government cannot exercise power under Section 48 (b) of the Old
Act, 1894, and re-convey the land to the original owner of the land.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the land owners/private
respondents in some of the writ appeals fairly submits before this
Court that the prayer as sought for by the land owners/private
respondents is to re-convey of the land under Section 48 (b) of the Old
Act, 1894 and no relief has been sought under Section 24 (2) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
New Act 30 of 2013. Hence, they seek to remit back the matter to the
writ Court and the same shall be considered by providing an
opportunity to the land owners/private respondents to raise additional
grounds, if any, after making amendment to the prayer.
5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. The Writ Court, while allowing the writ petitions has
specifically observed as follows:
(i) There is a lapse of 27 years in implementing the Scheme;
(ii) The handing over of possession of the land to Housing Board
was only symbolic and not physical and therefore the petitioners are
entitled to secure remedy under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of
2013;
(iii) The Scheme can be arranged anywhere and;
(iv) The Scheme is only at planning stage and not materialized
and further un-cultivable lands are available for implementing the
Housing Scheme elsewhere. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel
for the appellant Housing Board seeks for setting aside the order of the
Writ Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board stating that the Writ Court has omitted to see that after passing
the Award, the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
and the Local Planning Authority has approved the road pattern and a
huge sum of Rs.3834.00 lakhs has been approved for the proposed
Scheme, but simply allowed the writ petitions on the grounds (i) and
(iv) mentioned supra, without appropriately discussing the issue
elaborately and therefore the matter has to be remitted back to the
Writ Court to consider afresh all the above aspects.
8. During the course of the argument before this Court, it is
rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant
board that when no such pleading or ground has been taken in the writ
petition and there was also no prayer for the invokation of the
provisions under Section 24 (2) of the New Act, 30 of 2013, the writ
court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has granted the relief which has
not been the issue raised before the learned Single Judge, particularly
the specific prayer was only for re-conveyance of the land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
9. On a perusal of the order of the Writ Court, it is seen that the
Writ Court has discussed both the grounds under Section 24(2) of the
New Act 30 of 2013 as well as re-conveyance of the possession of land
under Section 48(b) of the Old Act, 1894 and allowed the writ
petitions. Therefore, we feel that this is a fit case for setting aside the
order of the writ court and remitting back since the Writ Court has not
given a specific reasoned order, for allowing the writ petitions under
Section 48(b) of the Old Act, 1894 and for holding that the petitioners
are entitled for a relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30, 2013
and further since the connected writ appeals have also been allowed,
the present writ petitions are also required to be remitted back for
fresh consideration. Accordingly, on the aforesaid ground, the matter
is remitted back to the Writ Court to consider afresh.
10. With the above directions, the orders dated 05.01.2015 of
the writ court in W.P.Nos.6118, 6119 and 6120 of 2013, are set aside
and consequently, these writ appeals stand allowed.
[D.K.K., J.] [P.B.B., J.]
03.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
To
The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -600 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B. BALAJI, J.
(mrn)
W.A.Nos.596 to 598 of 2017
03.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
