Land acquired for public purpose cannot be assigned to private individuals.

The respondent, Packiyalakshmi, was the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9890 of 2017 and sought assignment of house-site patta in land comprised in Survey Nos.507/4A, 507/4B and 507/4C, Thonukal Village, measuring approximately 1 acre and 72 cents.

The land had been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, on the recommendation of the concerned Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer.

The State contended that the land had been acquired and utilised for a public purpose and therefore could not be assigned to a private individual.

The learned Single Judge nevertheless directed assignment of the land to the writ petitioners, including the respondent, treating the requested free patta as serving a public purpose.

The State authorities filed the present writ appeal, which was confined to the respondent’s case.

Whether land acquired for and utilised for a public purpose under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 could be directed to be assigned as house-site patta to a private individual.

Whether the respondent’s claim for assignment could be granted otherwise than in accordance with the applicable rules, guidelines and eligibility norms.

The Court applied the principle underlying the Tamil Nadu Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 that land acquired for a specified public purpose must be used consistently with that purpose.

It further held that land acquired and earmarked for public use cannot be appropriated or assigned to an individual for private use, and that any request for assignment must be independently considered under the applicable rules, Government guidelines and prescribed eligibility norms.

The Division Bench found that the decisive consideration was the purpose for which the land had been acquired and utilised, rather than the respondent’s alleged possession or payment of land tax.

Since the land was specifically acquired for a public purpose, the Single Judge could not direct its assignment to the respondent, as such a direction would defeat the object of the acquisition and convert public-use land into private property.

The Court declined to examine the disputed tax-payment, alleged possession, prior rejection, and alleged forged document, holding that the respondent’s claim could only be considered under the governing rules, guidelines and eligibility requirements.

The Court directed that the lands in Survey Nos.507/4A, 507/4B and 507/4C be utilised only for the public purpose for which they were acquired.

The respondent was not granted assignment, though the judgment clarified that any future request would have to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules, guidelines and eligibility norms.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.