Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

The Managing Director v. I.Ravichandran (A) Ravi Sam

Madras High Court
Jul 16, 2009
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Court Opinion Summary: W.A.No.796 of 2008 & W.A.No.378 of 2009

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from two writ appeals: W.A.No.796 of 2008 (filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board) and W.A.No.378 of 2009 (filed by the State). Both appeals challenge a common order dated 28.4.2008 made in W.P.No.5316 of 2006. By that order the writ petition had been allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the Government was directed to exclude certain survey numbers from acquisition proceedings and reconvey the lands in favour of the petitioners.

The underlying facts (as described in the opinion) are:

  • An extent of 43.19 acres in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore, was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for a housing scheme. After statutory steps (including a 5A enquiry and declaration) an award was made, possession taken, and the land handed to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the scheme.
  • The respondents previously challenged acquisition in W.P.No.6453 of 1991; that writ petition was allowed but the State's appeal succeeded on 14.2.1996, making the acquisition final as to those earlier proceedings.
  • The respondents sought reconveyance from the Government; their initial request was rejected on 18.4.2000. Subsequent litigation included W.P.No.8512 of 2000 (where the Court set aside an order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration) and W.P.No.22200 of 2004 (where the Court directed the Government to consider the respondents' representations).
  • On 17.8.2005 and again on 5.10.2005 the Government rejected requests for reconveyance, stating that the Housing Board had informed the Government that the lands would be dealt with under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and that the Board did not consent to reconveyance. Those rejections were challenged and, by the order under challenge in these appeals, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition directing reconveyance.
  • Both the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed the present writ appeals against that order directing reconveyance.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the respondents are entitled to reconveyance of the land, especially when the Government had not forfeited the lands by exercising the power under Section 16B of the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act?
  2. Whether the reasons given by the Government in the impugned orders (notably reliance on Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and lack of the Board's consent) are legally justifiable?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
R. Shanmugam and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others, 2006 (4) CTC 290 Interpretation of the word "vest" in Section 16 (Land Acquisition Act) and the word "vest" in Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act: "vest" includes both title and possession in the context used; when land is handed to the Housing Board it is for a limited purpose and if not used, Government may forfeit under Section 16B. The court relied on this Division Bench decision to hold that Section 72 of the Housing Board Act cannot be invoked to defeat the power conferred on the Government by Section 16B. The court applied the interpretation that "vesting" for the Board is for a limited purpose and that the Government's power under Section 16B to forfeit land is independent of the Board's consent.
State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, 1997 (5) SCC 432 Principle that if land is acquired for public purpose and the public purpose is achieved, the residue may be used for other public purposes; where there is no other public purpose, land should be put to public auction rather than returned straightaway to erstwhile owners. The court cited these Apex Court guidelines to explain how land that vests in Government (either by possession under Section 16 or forfeiture under Section 16B) must be dealt with. The court used this precedent to support the proposition that reconveyance is not an automatic right and must follow the procedure and principles laid down by the Apex Court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in logical steps, closely tied to statutory text and the precedents cited in the opinion:

  1. Statutory framework: The Land Acquisition Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 1996) introduced Sections 16A and 16B, and Section 48-B. The text of Section 16B (as reproduced in the opinion) permits the Government, if satisfied that land acquired for a public purpose is not used for that purpose, to forfeit the land as penalty and vest it in the Government (Revenue Department) free from encumbrances, subject to a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Section 48-B provides for transfer of land to the original owner in certain cases, subject to repayment of statutory amounts.
  2. Meaning of "vesting": The court relied on R. Shanmugam (Division Bench) which held that the word "vest" in Section 16 includes title as well as possession. The same decision was held to constrain the meaning of "vest" in Section 72 of the Housing Board Act, indicating that any vesting thereunder is for the limited purpose of implementing a housing scheme.
  3. On the impugned orders' reasons: The Government and the Housing Board had relied on Section 72 of the Housing Board Act and the absence of the Board's consent to deny reconveyance. The court found both reasons legally unsustainable because (a) Section 72 cannot be used to defeat the Government's independent power under Section 16B, and (b) the consent of the Housing Board is immaterial when the Government exercises its statutory power to forfeit land under Section 16B. The Amendment Act's Section 16B overrides the protective effect that Section 72 might otherwise have offered the Board in this context.
  4. Reconveyance is not automatic: Even if the impugned orders were legally defective, the court reasoned that reconveyance is not an automatic right for the former owners simply because prior rejections were quashed. Before any reconveyance can be considered under Section 48-B, the Government must first exercise its power under Section 16B (i.e., determine that the land was not used for the acquired purpose and forfeit it). Only after such forfeiture (and vesting in the Revenue Department) can an application under Section 48-B be entertained; even then, reconveyance remains a discretionary exercise and not a matter of right.
  5. Application of Apex Court guidance: The court adopted the approach in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai (Apex Court) that land acquired for public purpose, once the public purpose is achieved or not used, should not be automatically returned to former owners but may be repurposed or publicly auctioned if there is no public need. This principle informs how the Government should treat vested land and whether reconveyance is appropriate.

The court thus reversed the part of the lower order that directed reconveyance without the Government having first exercised the statutory forfeiture power, and it set out the procedural steps the Government must follow.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The order in the writ petition directing reconveyance of the lands is set aside; the writ appeals are disposed of with directions permitting the Government to invoke Section 16B and, if it forfeits the land, to consider any application for reconveyance under Section 48-B in accordance with the cited authorities.

Immediate implications and directives (as stated in the opinion):

  • The Government is entitled to invoke Section 16B of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and, upon satisfaction that the lands were not used for the purpose acquired, may forfeit the lands from the Housing Board as penalty, whereupon the lands would vest in the Government (Revenue Department) free from encumbrances.
  • If the Government exercises that power and the lands vest in the Government, any application filed by the respondents for reconveyance under Section 48-B shall be considered in accordance with the Division Bench decision in R. Shanmugam and others (2006 (4) CTC 290), which followed the Apex Court's guidance in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai (1997 (5) SCC 432).
  • The Government was directed to complete such consideration within three months from the date of the judgment.
  • No automatic right to reconveyance exists for the landowners; reconveyance is contingent on the Government's statutory action and discretionary consideration under Section 48-B and the guiding precedents.
  • Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed and the Court ordered no costs.

The Court did not establish any new legal principle beyond interpreting and applying the amended statutory provisions in the light of existing precedents; it required the Government to follow statutory procedure (Section 16B) before reconveyance under Section 48-B could be considered.


End of summary — prepared strictly from the text of the provided opinion. No additional facts or inferences have been introduced.

Show all summary ...

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN J.) The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 796 of 2008 is at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 378 of 2009 is at the instance of State. Both the writ appeals question the common order dated 28.4.2008 made in the writ petition in W.P.No. 5316 of 2006. By that order the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders therein and the Government was directed to exclude the lands in survey numbers in question from the acquisition proceedings and reconvey the same in favour of the petitioners.

2. The controversy in the writ appeals arises under the following circumstances:-

An extent of 43.19 acres of land in S.No.46/2 etc., in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for housing scheme. After considering the objection raised in 5A enquiry, a declaration was made and ultimately the acquisition proceedings culminated into one of an award and possession of land was taken over and the same was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for implementing the scheme. The respondents earlier approached this court in W.P.No. 6453 of 1991 questioning the acquisition proceedings and the writ petition came to be allowed. However, the appeal preferred at the instance of the State came to be allowed on 14.2.1996. Hence, the acquisition proceedings became final. No materials are placed before us that the order in the writ appeal was questioned by way of further appeal. Thereafter, the respondents approached the Government with a request to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as their lands are concerned. That request was rejected on 18.4.2000. It was again questioned by the respondents in W.P.No.8512 of 2000. This court while setting aside the said order remitted back the matter to the Government for fresh consideration. The respondents again approached this court by yet another writ petition in W.P.No.22200 of 2004 seeking for reconveyance of the lands. By order dated 11.9.2004, this court again directed the Government to consider their representations made in this behalf. By order dated 17.8.2005, the Government rejected the request for reconveyance on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had informed the Government that the lands would be dealt with in terms of Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board did not give any consent for reconveyance. The respondents again made another representation, which was also rejected by the Government on 5.10.2005. Both the orders were put in issue before this court and by the order under challenge in the writ appeal the learned Judge after setting aside the impugned orders had allowed the writ petition as stated earlier. Both the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board have come up by way of present writ appeals.

3. We have heard Mr.Rajakalifullah, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Veerasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The questions that arise for our consideration are as follows:-

(i) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are entitled for reconveyance of the land especially when the Government had not so far forfeited the lands in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16B of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act to the Land Acquisition Act and

(ii) Whether the reasons adduced by the Government in the impugned orders are justifiable ?

5. Point No.1. The Land Acquisition Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act ) of 1996 (Act XVI of 1997) was enacted by inserting Sections 16A and Section 16B. By the same Amendment Act Section 48-B was also introduced. Both the provisions read as under:-

Section 16-B Land to be forfeited in certain cases- Where the Government are satisfied that the land acquired under this Act for any public purpose as referred to in subsection (1) of section 4 is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, they may, by an order, forfeit the land as penalty and the land shall vest in the Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances;

provided that no order under this section, shall be made unless the person or authority aggrieved has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

48-B Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases- Where the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the Acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 23, if any, paid under this Act."

6. Factually, the lands in question were taken possession on 20.11.1991. In terms of Section 16 of the Act, when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land and once the possession is taken, thereupon the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The wording "vesting in the Government" came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in R.Shanmugam and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others, 2006 (4) CTC 290.

7. In the said Judgment, in paragraph 15, it has been held that the word "vest" used in Section 16 must include vesting of the land in Government not only in regard to title but also possession and the word "vest" used in Section 16 means and includes not only conferring mere right to possess the land acquired by the Government but also confer title on it. There cannot be any difficulty that once the land is acquired for the Housing Board , the Government is empowered to hand over the land to the Board for implementation of the scheme. Once the land is handed over to the Housing Board it shall be dealt with by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act for the limited purpose of implementing the scheme. In case, if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was handed over to the Housing Board, the Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16B is entitled to forfeit the land as penalty and once such exercise is made the land shall vest in the Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances. The provision of "vesting of land " as contemplated under Section 16 and 16B are similar in meaning and therefore the Government is free to deal with the said land as if the land does not belong to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

8. By the impugned order, the request of the respondents for reconveyance was rejected on two grounds viz., that in terms of Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961 the Board has got right to deal with the property and there is no question of either surrendering possession of the land to the Government or the Government could exercise power under Section 16B of the Act. Further, the request was not considered on the ground that the consent of the Board was not given for reconveyance of the lands. In our opinion both the above two reasons cannot be legally sustainable. In the very same judgment, in R.Shanmugam and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others( 2006 (4) CTC 290) the Division Bench also considered the word "vesting" employed in72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board . It has been held that the word "vest" employed in Section 72 of the Housing Board Act, must be construed in the context it is used. The object of the Act is only to enable the Board to frame a Housing or Improvement Scheme and execute such a scheme . In the said contest, the word "vesting" may relate to title or possession for some limited purpose of disposing of the same as contemplated under Section 72. The Government may forfeit the land as penalty in case the land is not put in use by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the purpose for which it was acquired under Section 16B of the Act.

9. Section 72 of the Housing Board Act cannot be pressed into service by the Board. The amendment to the central act by insertion of the section 16b should over ride the provisions of Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. Hence the reason adduced in the impugned orders in the writ petition to reject the request for reconveyance on the ground that Section 72 is available for Housing Board cannot be sustained. For the same reason for invoking Section 16B of the Act the consent of the Board is absolutely immaterial for the Government. It is an independent power vested in the Government to forfeit the land as penalty in case the land is not utilised by the Board for the purpose for which it was acquired and handed over to the Housing Board. On both the grounds the orders impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained and they should be set aside.

10. Point No.2:- This relates to the next contention whether by virtue of setting aside those orders, the respondents are entitled to reconveyance as a matter of right ?

11. The procedure for acquisition of the lands for implementation of the Scheme may be summarised as follows. The Board frames the scheme; makes a request to the Government for allotment of necessary land; in the event the Government is satisfied with the scheme and the approved plan submitted by the Housing Board, they initiate the acquisition proceedings and on completion of such proceedings and on taking possession, the land is handed over to the Housing Board for implementation of the scheme. To this extent there is no difficulty as to the procedure.

12. However, when the land so handed over to the Housing Board is not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired two questions may arise, viz., Whether the Housing Board may claim that in the event the scheme for which the land was acquired is not implemented it may resolve to deal with the land in terms of Section 72 of the Housing Board Act? In view of the judgment in R.Shanmugam and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others (2006 (4) CTC 290), in such contingency, the Housing Board cannot invoke Section 72. The other question would be as to how such a land to be dealt with. The answer is Section 16 B of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. When once the State Government is satisfied that the land so acquired and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired it can forfeit the land as penalty and once such exercise is made, the land shall vest in the Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances. When the land vests in the Government then how it should be dealt with has also been considered in the said judgment following the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF KERALA VS. M.BHASKARAN PILLAI (1997 (5) SCC 432) wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"The question emerges: whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? 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 and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution."

13. Hence the land vests in the Government, in a case where possession is taken in terms of Section 16 or forfeiture of the land is made in exercise of the power under Section 16B in Government. Once such vesting takes place, it shall be dealt with only in accordance with the above guidelines of the Apex Court. Therefore, even assuming that the reasons given in the impugned orders in the writ petition are not sustainable, it for the Government to first exercise the power in terms of Section 16B and forfeit the land and only in such event an application 48-B could be entertained for reconveyance. Even assuming that the land is forfeited and is available for consideration of an application for reconveyance under Section 48B, the owner has no automatic right for reconveyance . In that context, this Court could direct the Government to consider the above two aspects for the purpose of dealing with the application, if any, filed by for reconveyance under Section 48B. In the absence of application of any of the provisions by the Government in order to the vesting the land in Revenue Department, the land owner is not entitled for a direction for reconveyance as has been done in this case. On this score, the order in the writ petition directing the Government for reconveyance of the lands in question is set aside and the writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions.

14. The Government is entitled to invoke Section 16B of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and on satisfying itself it can forfeit the lands in question as penalty from the Housing Board. In the event the Government exercise the above power and consequently the lands vests in the Government, the application filed by the respondents for reconveyance under Section 48B of the Act shall be considered. Such consideration shall be done in accordance with the judgment of this Court made in R.Shanmugam and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai and others( 2006 (4) CTC 290) which was rendered by following the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF KERALA VS. M.BHASKARAN PILLAI (1997 (5) SCC 432) . Such exercise shall be completed by the Government within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.

krr/ To

1. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam, Chennai 35.

3. The Executive Engineer Special Division (II) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Kowli Brown Road R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002