Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.5.2004 in W.P.No.14188 of 2004.) K. Chandru, J. This writ appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.5.2004 made in W.P.No.14188 of 2004. 2. According to the petitioner, he, along with his brothers, is the owner of Survey No.217/1 comprising of 1.96 acres in Thiruvanmiyur village, Mylapore - Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, and the said land was acquired by the appellant Board. According to the contention of the petitioner, even though the lands were acquired earlier for public purposes, the same was not utilised and, therefore, a representation dated 10.7.2003 was made to the Government to reconvey the said land pursuant to Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1996 [for short, 'Act']. It was also stated before the learned Judge that in identical cases, orders have been passed by this Court to reconvey the unutilised lands by virtue of Section 48-B of the Act. Even though the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.4.2004 wherein 12 weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of that order was granted to the appellant Board to dispose of the representation, the first respondent, by sheer abuse of process of Court, has filed another writ petition on 16.5.2004 being W.P.No. 14188 of 2004. 3. Before the learned single Judge, the first respondent has stated that even though he had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.11163 of 2004 and a direction was issued to dispose of his representation, no orders have been passed. It is significant to note that the said petition was filed during the vacation sitting of this Court and the learned single Judge, even during the vacation sitting, allowed the writ petition by order dated 19.5.2004. 4. We have heard Mr.K.Kasikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel for the first respondent and have perused the records. 5. The contention of the appellant Board is that their counsel did not represent during the vacation sitting and no opportunity was given to them to controvert the averments made by the first respondent and their name was simply incorporated in the order passed by the learned Judge. 5. The contention of the appellant Board is that their counsel did not represent during the vacation sitting and no opportunity was given to them to controvert the averments made by the first respondent and their name was simply incorporated in the order passed by the learned Judge. This ground was taken as ground No.3 in the writ appeal. We are of the view that such an entertainment of writ petition is clearly misconceived especially when the earlier order passed by this Court is yet to be implemented and the outer time limit fixed has not even expired. In any event, the course adopted by the learned single Judge giving a positive direction to the appellant to reconvey the land within a period of six weeks and also asking them to deposit the total amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is clearly unsustainable. 6. The power under Section 48-B of the Act will have to be exercised in the manner known to law and certainly, this Court cannot exercise the said power. Section 48-B of the Act has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court vide its decision reported in (2006) 4 CTC 290 [R.Shanmugam and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others]. Therefore, the direction given by this Court in the order under appeal is clearly not maintainable. 7. In any event, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Board that the land in question which belongs to the erstwhile owner, who is the first respondent herein, has been earmarked for a park under the Thiruvanmiyur Neighbourhood Extension Scheme and by a Gift Deed dated 26.6.1996, the appellant Board has handed over the same to the Corporation of Chennai to be maintained as a park. The handing over and taken over certificates have also been filed before us. Therefore, even the limited exercise guaranteed by the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of Section 48-B of the Act is not available to the first respondent in view of the decision of this Court cited supra. 8. Before we close this issue, a note of caution has to be made with reference to the disposal of the writ petition even at the admission stage. It is, in this context, necessary to refer to two Division Bench judgments of this Court. 8. Before we close this issue, a note of caution has to be made with reference to the disposal of the writ petition even at the admission stage. It is, in this context, necessary to refer to two Division Bench judgments of this Court. First is the judgment reported in 1998 (1) L.W. 605 [Director of Handlooms and Textiles vs. K.Venkatesan] and paragraphs 16, 17 and 21 of the judgments are usefully extracted below: "Para 16: A catena of decisions have been rendered highlighting the cardinal duty in extending the reasonable opportunity before a decision is taken prejudicial to the interests of a party. Para 17: The nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition is not one if not granted, would put the petitioner in imminent danger or injury or hazard to paramount public interests. It is not a case in which holding of elections had been notified to be held by the time and date already fixed. The order nowhere hints out the competing claims of hurry and hearing. Rather, no reason is found in the order, even for granting the relief. It is not an order where by following the earlier binding decisions of Courts, the petitioner gets allowed. Even under such circumstances, it is done by a court only after notice to the respondents or by their Standing Counsel taking notice in court. Allowing a writ petition straightaway when it comes up for admission is therefore an improper disposal, even though the power exercisable is under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The principles of fair play and justice are not excluded, when this power is invoked. It has become necessary to elaborate upon this point because this is not the first case wherein a writ petition without issue of notice to respondents and without hearing them, gets ordered as it comes up for admission. There are instances in which writ petitions are dismissed in admission stage, but directions are issued for compliance, which virtually results in petitioner getting the desired relief. This sort of directions or conditions imposed in admission stage, but technically concluding the order is dismissed or ordered accordingly, would not also be proper or permissible, because to the extent relief is extended by such manner of disposal leads to respondents without notice, being compelled to do certain acts, about which they have not been heard at all. This sort of directions or conditions imposed in admission stage, but technically concluding the order is dismissed or ordered accordingly, would not also be proper or permissible, because to the extent relief is extended by such manner of disposal leads to respondents without notice, being compelled to do certain acts, about which they have not been heard at all. Para 21: It is, therefore, held that under no circumstances, a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution could be straightaway allowed without ordering notice to affected respondents or without hearing their counsel who may on instructions participate in the proceedings by taking notice for their clients. Equally issuing directions or imposing conditions while dismissing writ petitions in admission stage cannot be done, without hearing respondents who are to abide by the conditions. Exercise of Constitutional power in this fashion being inappropriate this court is put to the unpleasant task of amplifying and enlightening as to what ought not to have been done, and hence remit the matter, so that the proper procedure required in law has to be followed, before the writ petition is disposed of. Any decision of court without adherence to proper procedure being illegal, though the respondents are before this court, of whom two of them are appellants, it had still necessitated in reviving the writ petition for adherence to established procedure." 9. Yet another decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1996 W.L.R. 360 [RM.Muthuveerappan, etc. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu] and the passage from paragraph 16 of the judgment is usefully extracted: "Para 16: ........ Thus, there can be no doubt whatever that the order passed in W.P.No.9947 of 1985 was illegal and ineffective. Further, it is seen from the records that the prayer in the writ petition was only to quash the order dated 25.10.1983 in G.O.Ms.No.2245. Instead of considering that prayer and the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant thereof, the learned Judge had taken upon himself to direct the petitioner before him to make a fresh written representation within a particular period and directed respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the same and pass orders. It should not be forgotten that the petitioner had no right whatever to make another representation and the respondents had no duty to consider the same. It should not be forgotten that the petitioner had no right whatever to make another representation and the respondents had no duty to consider the same. Even before the said writ petition was filed, the petitioner had several opportunities not only to make written representations, but also to appear in person before the concerned authority along with his counsel and make a representation. It was only after considering all those representations, the order dated 25.10.1983 was passed by the Government. In fact, if the learned Judge had given notice to the respondents it would have been established before him by production of the records that the petitioner's representations dated 16.11.1983 and 14.12.1983 made to the Government and the Chief Minister were forwarded to the High Court and a rejection thereof was recommended by the High Court. There was no justification, therefore, for a direction in that writ petition to the Government and the High Court to consider a fresh written representation which may be made thereafter by the petitioner therein. In any event, the order made in that writ petition being illegal, cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner herein." 10. In the light of the above, the writ appeal shall stand allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 19.5.2004 made in W.P.No.14188 of 2004 shall stand set aside. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.No.4841 of 2004 will stand closed.