AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
The land belonging to the Petitioner to the extent of 9.09 cents out of 74 cents were acquired in S. No. 132/3C1 as early as in the year 1998 and the Petitioner has made an application for re-conveyance u/s 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and that came to be rejected on the ground that the scheme of the Housing Board has been implemented and the purpose for which the lands acquired have already been fulfilled.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when once it is proved that the land still is available, it is always open to the erstwhile owner to reconvey u/s 48-B which is a statutory right.
Law is well settled that the right of reconveyance is not a matter of right u/s 48-B of the Act and even in cases where the acquiring authority can use it for any other public purpose it is not for this Court to give any direction contrary to the order passed by the authority to still reconvey the land. In the counter affidavit by the third Respondent, the third Respondent has clearly stated that the scheme for which the lands acquired have already been implemented.
In such view of the matter, there is absolutely nothing for this Court to interfere at this stage especially, after 20 years from the date of acquisition, the Petitioner has come forward by filing application u/s 48-B for reconveyance, which cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.