TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD versus KEERAVANI AMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 1062 · Decided: 15-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD 
;_ -
v. 
KEERA VAN! AMMAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894--ss. 48 and 48 B (as amended in the State 
of Tamil Nadu)--Acquisition of Land-For the purpose of housing under a 
• 
c 
Scheme-Delay in development of land-Representation by the owners seeking 
de-notification of the land-Rejection thereof-Plea of Department that land 
was already given to the Housing Board and delay was in view of pending 
litigations--Writ Petition seeking re-conveyance of the land-Plea in the 
writ Petition was only regarding request for de-notification and not for re-
conveyance-Writ Petitioner conceded that its earlier request for re-
D conveyance stood rejected-Order of re-conveyance by Single Judge assuming 
that the Scheme had been abandoned-Division Bench of High Court affirming 
order of re--conveyance without giving opportunity to Housing Board of 
.., 
being heard-On appeal, held: re-conveyance of the land was not 
permissible-There was no plea regarding earlier request to authorities for 
E 
re-conveyance--£ ven if its earlier request for re-conveyance was rejected by 
the authorities, it was not proper for the High Court to direct the authorities 
to consider an identical representation all over again-High Court erred in 
assuming that the Scheme was abandoned-Once the land is duly acquired, 
it would be against doctrine of public trust to give back the property for less 
than the market value-s. 48 B is exception to this rule and has to be strictly 
F construed-Doctrine of Public Trust. 
The land in question was acquired under Land Acquisition Act for 
housing purposes. For 21 years, as no progress had been made on the land, 
a representation was made to the Revenue Department of the State by the 
respondents for taking steps under Section 48 of the Act and de-notification 
G and exclusion of the lands from acquisition. The representation was dismissed. 
The rejection of representation was not challenged. The respondent filed Writ 
-
Petition seeking direction to the appellants not to interfere with their peaceful 
possession. The petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners-
respondent to file fresh Writ Petition incorporating proper prayer. Present 
H 
1062 
• 
) 
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARDv. KEERA V ANI AMMAL 
J 063 
Writ Petition was filed praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the A 
State, its officer and the Housing Board-to re-convey the lands in question. 
The Department inter alia had taken the plea that the Scheme for which the 
land was acquired was very much alive and that the delay in putting it to use 
was due to pending litigations. Single Judge of High Court directed the State 
Government to decide the representation of the respondents under Section 
48 B holding that the representation seeking re-conveyance cou Id be disposed B 
of by authorities in view of the fact that there was no development on the lands 
and in respect of other lands acquired for the scheme, re-conveyancing had 
been ordered. In Writ Appeal, Division Bench of High Court did not issue 
notice to the Housing Board to which the land had been transferred by the 
State. It directed the State to ree-convey the land in question. The order of C 
High Court was challenged by the Housing Board in this Court by way of 
Special Leave Petition. But the same was withdrawn with a view to file a Review 
Petition against the order of High Court. The Review Petition before the High 
Court was dismissed. Hence the present appeals by the Housing Board and 
the State. 
The respondent inter alia contended that the appeals against review were 
not maintainable in view of the fact that the Housing Board had withdrawn 
the earlier Special Leave Petition against the original order. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The withdrawel of earlier Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 
by the Housing Board cannot stand in the way of examining the correctness 
of the decisions rendered by the High Court in view of the fact that the State 
had not earlier challenged the original order of the Division Bench before 
D 
E 
this Court and now alone it seeks to challenge the original order, the order F 
on the review petition it had filed and the order on the contempt of court case 
in the appeals it has filed before this Court. [Para 5] [1068-E) 
Kumaran Silks Trade (P) Ltd. v. Devendra and Ors., )2006) 8 S.C.C. 
555, distinguished. 
2.1. There is no ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.