Latest News
Back
Document:
Madras High Court: The original owner has no right to seek restoration of the land once it has been vested in the state.
Facts:
The petitioner claimed that the 7.68-acre land in Nagamangalam village belonged to her father-in-law. This location, along with others, was chosen for the construction of a law school. The government then issued the Notification in 1982, citing the Urgency Clause of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. After some time, the award was delivered to the petitioner's father-in-law in exchange for the land for Rs.37,405/-. After that, the government decided to abandon the land purchase procedure, with the exception of the petitioner's father-in-land. law's The petitioner's father-in-law had been attempting to reclaim the 7.68-acre property since 1991.
In 2012, the petitioner filed a writ petition with the court, which found that the government's use of the emergency measures was unjustified and ordered the state to take more action. However, the government took no further action, prompting this current appeal under section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, seeking reconveyance of the land.
Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the reports submitted by the Sub Collector, the Principal of the Government Law College, the Tiruchirappalli District Collector, and the Commissioner of Land Administration clearly demonstrated that no one was opposed to the reconveyance and that everyone was in favour of it.
According to the Government's letter from 2007, the land was not even required for the construction of the Government Law College Hostel, and the petitioner's spouse was instructed to approach the District Collector for the reconveyance.
The respondent issued the impugned order on 13.01.2014, stating that the property will be needed for the allocation of ‘House Site Patta' to persons belonging to the Backward Community (B.C.) and Most Backward Community (M.B.C.) and thus cannot be given back to them, due to the lack of progress when the petitioner came to this Court for direction in 2012.
As a result, the petitioner argued that the court should order the respondent to transfer the land to the petitioner in accordance with the earlier ruling, as required by section 48 of the relevant Act.
Observation of the Court:
The court considered the scope and scope of section 48-B of the Act, noting that this section of the Land Acquisition Act of 1984 (for property reconveyance) was included as an exception in the state of Tamil Nadu, and that this provision must be carefully read, with strict adherence to its terms required.
And, before agreeing on reconveyance, the government must be satisfied that the land is not required for any other public purpose, not merely the one for which it was acquired. As a result, the original owner has no legal right to demand that the government or authorities return the land, nor does he have any legal right to claim it.
Held:
The Court determined that the petitioner had no legal right to demand reconveyance of the land because the respondent had already begun to use the land for public purposes after reviewing all of the facts of the case. As a result, no mandamus was issued, and the writ petition was rejected.
Document:
