Once acquisition proceedings are set aside, the Housing Board cannot claim ownership or withhold a no-objection certificate.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 25.87 cents in S.F. Nos. 968/6B, 968/8B and 968/9, Kalapatti East Village, purchased in 2006.

The land formed part of a larger area notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, with a subsequent declaration under Section 6.

In 2006, this Court set aside the acquisition proceedings concerning S.F. No. 968 because no award had been passed within two years of the Section 6 declaration.

The petitioner later sought a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), stating that the revenue authorities required it for subdivision and patta-related purposes; he relied on an NOC granted to a similarly situated landowner following an order in W.P. No. 26719 of 2017.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the TNHB respondents to consider his representation dated 19 July 2024 and issue the NOC.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an NOC from the TNHB concerning the subject property after the acquisition proceedings had been set aside.

2. Whether the TNHB could withhold the NOC when a similarly situated landowner had received one in comparable circumstances.

The Court relied on the prior order in W.P. No. 25766 of 2005, which set aside the acquisition proceedings concerning the relevant land because no award had been passed within two years of the Section 6 declaration.

It also referred to the order in W.P. No. 26719 of 2017, under which the TNHB had issued an NOC to a similarly situated landowner.

The Court applied the principle that, once acquisition proceedings concerning the property had been set aside, the TNHB could not claim ownership over it or insist on an NOC without a valid basis; similarly situated landowners should not be denied comparable treatment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s land formed part of the property covered by the acquisition proceedings that had been set aside.

It considered the requirement for an NOC unreasonable in light of that order and the absence of any valid basis for the TNHB to assert ownership over the land.

The Court further noted that a similarly situated landowner had obtained an NOC pursuant to an earlier order, and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to equivalent relief.

No costs were ordered.