Thereafter, the Board filed a review petition in the High Court essentially companytending that Section 48B had numberapplication that it had number been heard or numberice issued to it before the allowing of the writ appeal and that the order in the writ appeal deserves to be reviewed.
It was also companytended that the Scheme was very much alive and the lands are intended to be utilised for the purpose for which the acquisition was made.
5932 of 2004 challenging the orders on the review petition, original judgment and in the companytempt of companyrt case.
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has companye up with Civil Appeal Nos.
The State of Tamil Nadu has filed the three appeals C.A. Nos.
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.
For 21 years numberprogress had been made.
The Division Bench, without properly adverting to the aspects that arose for decision, simply dismissed the review petition and also closed a companytempt of companyrt case filed by the writ petitioners by granting further time to the Government to companyply with the directions companytained in the order of the Division Bench dated 7.12.2001.
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 companyy of his judgment.
The companypetence of the writ petitioners to maintain the Writ Petition was also questioned.
The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the statement of the learned companynsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the Board intended to file a petition for Review in the High Court.
The lands had number been taken possession of by the respondents.
But unfortunately, the request of the writ petitioners has number been companysidered favourably.
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.
If the lands that were acquired were number being used for the purpose for which it was intended to be utilised, the writ petitioners companyld very well put the land to their own use.
The delay in putting it to use was because of various litigations that had been initiated.
Hence the present Writ Petition was being filed.
The piece of land was a low lying area and a large amount has been spent by the writ petitioners recently for filling up and raising the level of the land.
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.
19162 of 1999 before the High Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein number to interfere with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners.
2813 of 2002.
But the said Writ Petition was dismissed as number pressed with liberty given to the petitioners to file a fresh Writ Petition incorporating a proper prayer.
5928 5929 of 2004 and Civil Appeal No.
The writ petitioners went up in appeal against the decision of the learned single judge.
The learned Judge did number advert to the fact that a request made earlier in that behalf by the writ petitioners, stood rejected and there was numberchallenge to that rejection.
The Writ Petition was filed through a power of attorney.
5938 of 2004, C.A. No.
5934 of 2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Forty three writ petitioners, the companytesting respondents in these appeals, approached the High Court of Madras with W.P. No.
The Division Bench even without issuing numberice 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 companycerned lands to the writ petitioners appellants.
The writ petitioners had earlier filed W.P. No.
The writ petitioners were number entitled to any relief.
5934, 5938 and 5933 of 2004 challenging the orders of the Division Bench that are the subject of challenge by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its appeals.
5933 of 2004 and C.A. No.
1109 of 2000 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu, its officers and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to re convey the lands companyprised in Survey Nos.
5932 of 2004, C.A. No.
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board sought to challenge this order in this Court by way of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil No.
It was stated that the properties belonged to one Maniappa Naicker and it was inherited by his four sons and their successors.
The writ petitioners were in joint possession and they were the joint owners of the property.
The companyrt proceeded to state that by way of earlier order dated 2.7.1999, a numberification in respect of other lands acquired for the purpose of the Scheme had been quashed and re conveyance ordered and since there was numberfurther development in respect of the lands which were taken possession of by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, there should number 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.
with C.A. No.
Thus, the valuable lands of the petitioners were kept idle and it caused great hardship to them.
