Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering re‑conveyance of the acquired land; the scheme was not abandoned, Section 48B does not apply to the petitioners, and the land must remain with the State for the public purpose.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the re‑conveyance of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a housing scheme. The writ petitioners had earlier sought de‑notification under Section 48 and re‑conveyance under Section 48B, but their request for re‑conveyance had been rejected and not contested. The Court held that the High Court erred in assuming the housing scheme was abandoned and in ordering re‑conveyance despite the land having been duly acquired, possession taken, and plans for public use already made. It emphasized that once acquisition is completed, the land becomes State property and can be disposed of only for market value unless Section 48B, strictly construed, applies to the original owner, which was not the case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court orders set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could validly direct re‑conveyance of land under Section 48B when the earlier request for re‑conveyance had been rejected and not challenged.
Whether the housing scheme for which the land was acquired was abandoned, thereby permitting re‑conveyance.
Whether Section 48B of the Tamil Nadu amendment applies only to the original owner and whether the writ petitioners qualify as such.
Whether the State can withdraw from an acquisition after possession has been taken, under Sections 48 and 48B.
Whether the doctrine of public trust bars the State from returning acquired land for less than market value.
Whether the appeals are maintainable despite the withdrawal of an earlier Special Leave Petition by the Housing Board.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 36, s. 4(1), s. 48, s. 48B, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 48Section 48BRe‑conveyancePublic trust doctrineScheme abandonmentWrit of mandamusSpecial Leave PetitionAppeal maintainability

Judgment

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 •
Scheme-Delay in development of land-Representation by the owners seeking
c 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 ofHigh 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
re-conveyance--£ven if its earlier request for re-conveyance was rejected by
E 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 VANI AMMAL J063
)
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.
D
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
E
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
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.
G
2.1. There is no material on the basis of which it can be held that the
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had not been completed. The
allegations in the Writ Petition show that the prayer made by the writ
petitioners to the Government was for de-notifying the lands under Section
48 of Land Acquisition Act. On the facts pleaded it is doubtful whether the
Goverment can withdraw from the acquisition, since the case of the State and H

•
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A the Housing Board is that possession has been taken and plans finalised to
fulfil the purpose for which the acquisition was made. There is no plea in the I._ .....
Writ Petition that a request for re-conveyance was made in terms of Section
48B of the Act as amended in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(Paras 6 and 71 (1069-A; 1070-DI

B 2.2. If the request of the writ petitioners for re-conveyance in terms of
Section 48B of the Act stood rejected as apparently conceded by them beefore
Single Judge, one finds it difficult to see how a second direction can be issued
even in the absence of a challenge in the Writ Petition to the order of rejection
and without examining the reasons contained therein. That order was also
c binding on the writ petitioners, so long as it was not got rid of. The order
rejecting the request had become final and in a sense, it was not open to the
Single Judge to issue the direction to consider an idential representation all
over again. The Division Bench apparently, even without giving the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board an opportunity of being heard, proceeded at the stage of
admission itself to direct re-conveyance of the lands to the writ petitioners. If
D the Division Bench felt that there was a case to be looked into, it should have
admitted the Writ Appeal, issued rule nisi to the parties and thereafter heard
the matter and disposed it of in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act,
the law bearing on the subject and the facts obtaining. Even when the Division
Bench got an opportunity to correct itself on being approached by way of
review, it did not utilise that opportunity. [Para 81 [1071-C, D, El
E
2.3. It is clearly pleaded by the State and the Housing Board that the
Scheme had not been suspended or abanddoned and that the lands acquired
are very much needed for the implementation of the Scheme and the steps in
that regard have already been taken. In the light of this position, it is not
F open to the court to assume that the project has been abanded merely because
another piece of land in the adjacent village had been released from acquisition
in the lights of orders of court. It could not be assumed that the whole of the
project had been abandoned or has become unworkable. It depends upon the
purpose for which the land is acquired. There is no impediment in the lands
in question being utilised for the purpose of putting up a multi-storied building
G containing small flats, intended as the public purpose when the acquisition
was notified. Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in proceeding as if the
Scheme stood abandoned. This was an unwarranted assumption on the part of ....
the court, which has no foundation in the pleadings and the materials produced
in the case. The Court should have at least insisted on production of materials
H to substaniate a claim of abandonement. (Para 91 (1072-81
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARDv. KEERA VAN! AMMAL [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 1065
-,,
2.4. Once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land A
J Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can
dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not
needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value
that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine
of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for
anything less than the market value. Section 48B introduced into the Act in B
the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to
be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms insistead upon.
- _. [Para 111 [1072-E; 1073-B)

State of Kera/a and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr., [1997) 5 c
S.C.C. 432, relied on.

2.5. The respondents have not made out any case for interference by
this Court or for grant of any relief to them. Mere claim of possession by the
writ petitioners is not a foundation on which the relief now granted could have
been rested either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench of th~ High D
Court. [Paras 10 and 12) [1072-C; 1073-CI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5928-5929 of
2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2004 of the High Court of E
Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 203 of 2002 in Review
Application Nos. 44 & 45 of 2002.
WITH

C.A. No. 5932 of2004, C.A. No. 5938 of2004, C.A. No. 5933 of2004 and
C.A. No. 5934 of2004. F
~
K.K. Vengupoal, K.V. Vishwanathan, Haripriya and V. Mohana for the
Appellant.

A.K. Gnaguli, V. Balaji, T.S. Shanthi, Rakesh K. Sharma and T. Harish

-/
t
Kumar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. Forty-three writ petitioners, the
contesting respondents in these appeals, approached the High Court of
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Madras with W.P. No. 1109 of2000 praying for the issue ofa writ of mandamus
directing the State of Tamil Nadu, its officers and the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board to re-convey the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 237, 238/1, 238/2 and
238/3 in all 2.43 acres, in Padi village presently in Ambattur Taluk and for
passing such further orders as deemed by the court to be fit and proper. The
Writ Petition was filed through a power of attorney. It was stated that the
B properties belonged to one Maniappa Naicker and it was inherited by his four
sons and their successors. It was asserted that the writ petitioners were the
absolute owners of the property as legal heirs and are in lawful possession
and enjoyment of the said property. The writ petitioners were in joint
possession and they were the joint owners of the property. The land was
C sought to be acquired for housing purposes. It was conceded that a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
12.7.1975 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of that Act on 29.11.1978,
followed up by an Award on 7.10.1992. It was stated that the petitioners
reliably understood that the appropriate authorities had passed orders for
dropping the Scheme for which the acquisition was made. Thus, the valuable
D lands of the petitioners were kept idle and it caused great hardship to them.
For 21 years no progress had been made. If the lands that were acquired were
not being used for the purpose for which it was intended to be utilised, the
writ petitioners could very well put the land to their own use. The piece of
land was a low lying area and a large amount has been spent by the writ
E petitioners recently for filling up and raising the level of the land. A
representation was made to the Secretary to the Government in the Revenue
Department for taking steps under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,
de-notifying or excluding the lands from acquisition. But unfortunately, the
request of the writ petitioners has not been considered favourably. The lands
had not been ,taken possession of by the respondents. The writ petitioners
F had earlier filed W.P. No. 19162 of 1999 before the High Court praying for the
issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein not to interfere
with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners. But the said Writ Petition
was dismissed as not pressed with liberty given to the petitioners to file a
fresh Writ Petition incorporating a proper prayer. Hence the present Writ

-
G Petition was being filed. We have already adverted to the prayer that was
made.

2. The respondents in the Writ Petition submitted that earlier, an
application had been made by the writ petitioners under Section 48B of the
Land Acquisition Act as amended in the State of Madras, but the said request
H
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD i·. KEERA VANI AMMAL (BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] J067

had been rejected by the Government. It is significant that there is no A
/
challenge to such a rejection in the Writ Petition and no prayer for a writ of
certiorari to quash such an order. It was also contended that the Scheme was
very much alive and the lands are intended to be utilised for the purpose for
which the acquisition was made. The delay in putting it to use was because
of various litigations that had been initiated. The possession of the lands B
had been taken and made over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The writ
petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The competence of the writ
petitioners to maintain the Writ Petition was also questioned.

3. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the Writ
Petition was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents C
therein to re-convey the lands involved in the Writ Petition in terms of Section
48B of the Act as inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court proceeded
to state that by way of earlier order dated 2.7.1999, a notification in respect
of other lands acquired for the purpose of the Scheme had been quashed and
re-conveyance ordered and since there was no further development in respect
of the lands which were taken possession of by the Tamil Nadu Housing D
Board, there should not be any impediment in the way of the respondents in
disposing of the representation of the writ petitioners dated 18.3.1998 seeking
re-conveyance of the lands under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Judge did not advert to the fact that a request made earlier in
that behalf by the writ petitioners, stood rejected and there was no challenge E
to that rejection. The learned Single Judge ended up by directing the State
of Tamil Nadu to pass appropriate orders on the representation given on
behalf of the writ petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of his judgment.

4. The writ petitioners went up in appeal against the decision of the F
learned Single Judge. The Division Bench even without issuing notice to the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board to which the property had been transferred by the
State according to the State and the Board, proceeded to direct the State of
Tamil Nadu and its officers to re-convey the concerned lands to the writ
petitioners - appellants. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board sought to challenge
this order in this Court by way of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) G
No. 2813 of 2002. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed
1
as withdrawn in the light of the statement of the learned counsel for the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board that the Board intended to file a petition for Review in
the High Court. Thereafter, the Board filed a review petition in the High Court
essentially contending that Section 48B had no application; that it had not H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A been heard or notice issued to it before the allowing of the writ appeal and
that the order in the writ appeal deserves to be reviewed. The Division-
. '

Bench, without properly adverting to the aspects that arose for decision,
simply dismissed the review petition and also closed a contempt of ~ourt case
filed by the writ petitioners by granting further time to the Government to
B comply with the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench dated
7.12.200 I. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has come up with Civil Appeal
Nos. 5928-5929 of 2004 and Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2004 challenging the
orders on the review petition, original judgment and in the contempt of court
case. The State of Tamil Nadu has filed the three appeals C.A. Nos. 5934,
5938 and 5933 of 2004 challenging the orders of the Division Bench that are
C the subject of challenge by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents relying on the decision
in Kumaran Silks Trade (P) Ltd. v. Devendra & Ors., [2006] 8 S.C.C. 555
raised a contention that the appeals by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board being
appeals against the orders in review petition were not maintainable since the
D Tamil Nadu Housing Board had withdrawn the earlier Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal filed by it against the original order reserving only liberty
in itself to seek a review in the High Court. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case on hand, however, in our considered opinion, the
withdrawal of earlier Petition for Special Leave to Appeal by the Housing
E Board cannot stand in the way of our examining the correctness of the
decisions rendered by the High Court in view of the fact that the State of
Tamil Nadu had not earlier challenged the original order of the Division Bench
before this Court and now alone it seeks to challenge the original order, the
order 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. The principle recognised
F in Kumaran Silks (Supra) has no application to those appeals. Learned
counsel for the contesting respondents pointed out that there was delay in •.
filing the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal leading to those appeals. But
obviously, the delay was condoned and leave granted and we now have the
three appeals before us for final hearing and disposal. In these appeals, we
G have necessarily to examine the correctness and propriety of the directions
issued by the High Court.

6. Admittedly, the lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
and an Award was passed. According to the State, possession was taken
after some delay in view of a number of Writ Petitions that were filed in the
H High Court and the compensation payable under the Award had been deposited.
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD"- KEE RA VAN! AMMAL [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] j 069

There is no material on the basis of which we can hold that the proceedings A
)
under the Land Acquisition Act had not been completed. In fact, the prayer
in the Writ Petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State,
its officers and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to re-convey the property to
the writ petitioners, the contesting respondents herein though there is an
assertion that the writ petitioners are in possession. The learned Single Judge B
proceeded on the basis that the claim of the writ petitioners was for re-
conveyance of the land under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act as
inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu. The question therefore is whether the
High Court was justified in directing the land to be re-conveyed in view of
the specific stand adopted by the Housing Board and the State that the
Scheme was very much in operation that necessary plans have been prepared C
and the project got delayed only because of the judicial intervention. We may
also notice that it is the specific case of the appellants that in I998, a claim
for re-conveyance made had already been rejected. The further contention
by the State and the Board was that possession of the lands having been
made over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Section 48B of the Act could
not be invoked or the State directed to re-convey the land to the writ D
petitioners. The further submission was that Section 48B contemplated re-
conveyance of land only to the original owner and not to anyone else and
the writ petitioners were not the original owners from whom the land was
acquired. In fact, it was contended that the writ petitioners have not established
that they were either the representatives or the successors-in-interest of the E
original owners. It was asserted that, in fact, they were mere purchasers
subsequent to the acquisition.

7. The allegations in the writ petition show that the prayer made by the
writ petitioners to the Government was for de-notifying the lands under
Section 48 of the Act. We think it proper to extract that allegation: F
"I further state that I have given a representation to the Secretary to
Government Revenue Department, Chennai - 600 009 and Secretary to
the Government, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St.
George, Chennai - 600 009, requesting them to take necessary steps
by notifying under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act de-notifying G
or excluding the lands. But unfortunately, as far requisitions of the
petitioners has not been considered favourably."

Section 48 of the Act reads as under:

"Sec.48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A to be awarded when not completed. - (l) Except in the case provided
for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from \
the acquisition of any land which possession has not been taken.

2. Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition,
the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for
B the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice
or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to
the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred
by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act
relating to the said land.
C 3. The provision of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be,
to the determination of the compensation payable under this
section."

On the facts pleaded it is doubtful whether the Government can withdraw
from the acquisition, since the case of the State and the Housing Board is
D that possession has been taken and plans finalised to fulfil the purpose for
which the acquisition was made. There is no plea in the writ petition that a
request for re-conveyance was made in terms of Section 488 of the Act as
amended in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said provision reads:

"48-B. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases-Where the
E Government are satisfied that the land vested in the Government
under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was
acquired, or for any other public purpose, 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-sections (l-A) and (2) of Section 23,
F
if any, paid under this Act."

In the grounds in the writ petition it is only asserted that the writ
petitioners are in possession in spite of the acquisition. There is no ground
based on Section 488 of the Act though the prayer, as noticed earlier is for
G the issue of a writ of mandamus to reconvey the property. It is proper to
notice that no foundation bad been laid for seeking such a relief. There is
no plea of demand, no plea of refusal and no plea of a duty in the State to
re-convey.

8. We find from the order of the learned single judge dated 2.8.200 l, in
H the Writ Petition, the following statement recorded:
T,\Mll NADU HOUSING BOARD1·. KEERA VAN! AMMAL fBALASUBRAMANYAN.JJ j 071

"According to the petitioners the said lands were not put into use by A
the fourth respondent Board for nearly 20 years. In the above said
circumstances, when the petitioners approached the respondents for
re-conveyance of the property by virtue of Section 48B of the Land
Acquisition Act, ii was rejected by the respondent. Again the
petitioners made a representation to the respondents dated 18.3.98. B
Since the said representation of the petitioners has not been disposed
of, the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking for the issuance
of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-convey the
lands situated in Survey Nos. 237, 238/1, 238/2 and 238/3 of Padi
Village, Ambattur Taluk, M.G.R. District."

If the request of the writ petitioners for re-conveyance in terms of Section 48B
c
of the Act stood rejected as apparently conceded by them before learned
Single Judge, one finds it difficult to see how a second direction can be
issued even in the absence of a challenge in the writ petition to the order of
rejection and without examining the reasons contained therein. That order
was also binding on the writ petitioners, so long as it was not got rid of. The D
order rejecting the request had become final and in a sense, it was not open
to the learned Single Judge to issue the direction to consider an identical
representation all over again. The Division Bench went one step further, we
regret to say, without a proper consideration of the relevant aspects. The
Division Bench apparently, even without giving the Tamil Nadu Housing E
Board an opportunity of being heard, proceeded at the stage of admission
itself to direct re-conveyance of the lands to the writ petitioners, whether it
be on the first date of hearing itself or on the subsequent date as contended
by learned counsel for the contesting respondents. If the Division Bench felt
that there was a case to be looked into, it should have admitted the writ
appeal, issued rule nisi to the parties and thereafter heard the matter and F
disposed it of in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act, the law
bearing on the subject and the facts obtaining. Even when the Division
Bench got an opportunity to correct itself on being approached by way of
review, it did not utilise that opportunity.

9. It is clearly pleaded by the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board G
that the Scheme had not been suspended or abandoned and that the lands
acquired are very much needed for the implementation of the Scheme and the
steps in that regard have already been taken. In the light of this position.
it is not open to the court to assume that the project has been abandoned
merdy because another piece of land in the adjacent village had been released H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A from acquisition in the light of orders of court. It could not be assumed that ~
the whole of the project had been abandoned or has become unworkable. It
depends upon the purpose for which the land is acquired. As we see it, we
find no impediment in the lands in question being utilised for the purpose of
putting up a multi-storied building containing small flats, intended as the
B public purpose when the acquisition was notified. Therefore, the High Court
clearly erred in proceeding as if the Scheme stood abandoned. This was an
unwarranted assumption on the part of the court, which has no foundation
in the pleadings and the materials produced in the case. The Court should
have at least insisted on production of materials to substantiate a claim of
abandonment.
c I0. We have already noticed that in the Writ Petition, there are no
sufficient allegations justifying interference by the Court. Mere claim of
possession by the writ petitioners is not a foundation on which the relief now
granted could have been rested either by the learned Single Judge or by the
Division Bench of the High Court. On the materials, no right to relief has been
D established by the writ petitioners.

1I. We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State.
The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if
the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the
E market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance.
The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the
property for anything less than the market value. In State of Kera/a & Ors.
v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., [1997] 5 S.C.C. 432 in a similar situation, this
Court observed:
F "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
G 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 utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive
Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that
the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act
and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division
H
TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARDv. KEERA VAN! AMMAL [BALASUBRAMANYAN,J] J073

)
Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. A
Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose.
Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through
the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting
higher value."

Section 48B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception B
to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict compliance
with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be challenged for
its validity, we are not called upon to decide here.

12. We are thus of the view that the writ petitioners, the contesting
respondents, have not made out any case for interference by the Court or for C
grant of any relief to them. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into
the further contention raised on the scope of Section 48B of the Act, whether
the writ petitioners have established any claim to the lands, whether the re-
conveyance can only be to the original owners and not to others and whether
if possession has already been made over to the Housing Board, the State D
could exercise its power under that provision. We leave open those questions
for the High Court to consider as and when the occasion arises on it being
approached in the context of Section 48B of the Act. Suffice it to say that
the decision of the High Court in the Writ Petition in question is totally
unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
E
13. We therefore allow the appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and
set aside all the orders passed in the Writ Petition and in the writ appeal and
in the contempt of court case. We dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the writ
petitioners. In view of the above position, there is no need to pass any further
order in the appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The above F
decision will govern the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also. The State of Tamil
Nadu would be entitled to its costs from the writ petitioners in its appeals and
the parties would suffer their respective costs in the appeals filed by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed. G