Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.123, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 010. 2004 relating to Lands in Survey No.589/3A5 of an extent of 19. 5 hectares and Survey No.578/1A1 of an extent of 0.10.5 totalling to 30. 00 hectares in Karungalakkudi village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Four petitioners are the absolute owners of property which was subjected to acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978. The said Notification under Section 4(1) was published in Government Gazette on 16.02.2000. The third respondent, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) issued notice for determination of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired as aforesaid. The third respondent fixed certain amount as compensation, which was totally determined in a sum of Rs.7,96,760/-Aggrieved by the said determination, the petitioners have preferred appeals in L.A.C.M.A.Nos.13 to 16 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and the same were disposed off by a common order dated 30.09.2003 enhancing the compensation. Aggrieved over the enhancement, the third respondent, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) preferred second appeals in S.A.Nos.1045 to 1048 of 2004 and they are pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. 3. In the meanwhile, on 010. 2004, the Government issued G.o.Ms.No.123, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, calling upon the District Collector to re-convey or hand over the acquired property back to the owner after recovering the sum of Rs.7,96,760/- from the land owners. This Government Order is under challenge in this writ petition stating that without the agreement between the land owners and the Government, the acquired property cannot be reconveyed. The petitioners are challenging the said Government Order on the ground that the lands have been acquired under section 4(1) of the Act and in view of Section 5 of the Act 31 of 1978, whereby on acquisition, the land vests with the Government absolutely and there being no consent given by the land owners, the Government cannot force the land owners/petitioners to take back the property. 4. The Additional Advocate General relying upon the counter affidavit stated that the land in question was acquired in an improper manner by the authorities and the value fixed was very high. 4. The Additional Advocate General relying upon the counter affidavit stated that the land in question was acquired in an improper manner by the authorities and the value fixed was very high. Possession of the land was not taken and it is not put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired and therefore, relying on the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Central Act as applicable to the State of Tamil nadu and the provisions of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) it is stated that since possession has not been taken over, the Government has got the power to reconvey the property to the land owners. 5. Section 4 (1) and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) reads as follows: "4.Power to acquire land: (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that, for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme , it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this Section." 5. Land Acquired to vest in Government free from all encumbrances: When a notice under sub section (1) of Section 4 is published in the District Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published ,vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances." 6. On a plain reading of Section 5, it is clear that where a notification is issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land acquired vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the government to say that possession was not taken or that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Section 48-B of the Central Act enables the Government to transfer back the land to the original owner, by mutual agreement and there can be no dispute on that. The First Bench of this Court in Southern Railways. rep. Section 48-B of the Central Act enables the Government to transfer back the land to the original owner, by mutual agreement and there can be no dispute on that. The First Bench of this Court in Southern Railways. rep. By its Chief Engineer (Construction), Egmore, Chennai VS S.Palaniappan reported in 2005-2-L.W.325 has however clearly held that the State Government cannot reconvey the land to the land owners without their consent and that is the case on hand. Paragraph 16, 17 and 34 of the said judgment of the first Bench reads as follows: "16. Thus, before the enactment of Section 48-B by the Land acquisition (TamilNadu Amendment)Act 1996 the legal position was that once the land stood vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Act, it could not be reconveyed to the original owner even by mutual consent between the Government and the original land owner. It was evidently to get over this difficulty that Section48-B was enacted. In our opinion, Section 48-B clearly contemplates a mutual agreement between the original owner and the Government to re-convey the land which is vested in the State Government under Section 16 to the original owner on his return of the money paid to him in respect of the acquisition. In our opinion, Section 48-B does not contemplate a unilateral withdrawal from the acquisition by the State Government. The land in question stood vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Act, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. Vs Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492 it could not have even been re-conveyed to the original owner even by mutual consent between the original land owner and the government, but for Section 48-B which was inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu. 17. The learned Advocate General urged that Section 48-B permits the State Government to transfer back the land to the original land owner unilaterally even after the land stood vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. We do not agree. 17. The learned Advocate General urged that Section 48-B permits the State Government to transfer back the land to the original land owner unilaterally even after the land stood vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. We do not agree. If the intention of the legislature in introducing Section 48-B is not to permit unilateral reconveyance by the State Government of the land which is already vested in it, then Section 48-B would have read as follows: "Where the Government is satisfied that the land vested in it under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose the Government may transfer back such lands to the original owner and realise the amount paid as compensation to the original owner." 34. We respectfully do not agree with the learned single Judge that Section48-B has been introduced only to protect the interest of the persons from whom the land had been acquired. In our opinion, Section 48-B can also protect the interest of the State Government which wants to re-convey the land which it had acquired, but in such a case the State Government must get the consent of the erstwhile land owner before it can reconvey the land to him under Section 48-B. The State Government cannot act unilaterally in this connection as already held above." In the present case, as could be seen from the factual aspects of the claim made by the petitioners, there is no consensus or agreement between the petitioners and the Government for reconveyance. Hence, the provision of Section 48 B of Central Act does not get attracted. 7. That apart, one other factor which has to be considered in the present case is that the provision of 48-B of the Land Acquisition (Central Act) Act cannot be read into Act 31 of 1978 and the question of reconveying the lands acquired under Section 4(1) of the said State Act will not arise under any circumstances as the land vests with the Government in terms of Section 5 of the Act 31 of 1978. Reconveyance as contemplated under section 48-B of the Central Act cannot be read into or made applicable to Act 31 of 1978. Reconveyance as contemplated under section 48-B of the Central Act cannot be read into or made applicable to Act 31 of 1978. In this regard, I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mr.Justice Paul Vasanthkumar in the case of R.Ananthakrishnan and others VS The Secretary, State of Tamil nadu, Adi Drvidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Chepauk, Chennai and three others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 447 , wherein, in paragraph 12 it has been held as follows: "Act 31 of 1978 being a special enactment and admittedly there is no provision for dropping the notification already issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it has to be ascertained whether the respondents have any right to issue withdrawal notification for any reason. Even though the power of reconveyance is vested under the Central Act and after vesting of the land with the Government free from all encumbrances, whether it can be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner as a matter of right, was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Govt. of A.P. VS Syed Akbar 2004(5) CTC 506: 2005(1) SCC 558 and in paragraphs 10 and 14 the Supreme Court held as follows: "10. It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In state of Kerala VS M.Bhaskaran pillai para 4 of the said judgment reads: "4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the directive principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting a higher value." 14. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances,(2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilised for any other pub lic purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order. Even under the Central Act, Section 48(1) clearly says that the Government shall be at liberty, except in the case provided for in Section 36, to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, legal position emerges is that if the possession of the land has been taken, the de-notification is not legally possible. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Godrej and boyce, 1988(1) SCC 50 , in paragraph 5 held as follows: "5.... Thus, legal position emerges is that if the possession of the land has been taken, the de-notification is not legally possible. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Godrej and boyce, 1988(1) SCC 50 , in paragraph 5 held as follows: "5.... Till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes, although it may be that on account of the pendency of proceedings for acquisition intending purchasers may be chary of coming near the land. So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under Section 4 or declaration under Section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. Again, such a notification does not either confer on the State Government any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachments therefrom or in any other way safeguard the interests of the original owner of the land. It is in view of this position, that the owners interests remain unaffected until possession is taken, that Section 48 gives a liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken........" Here in this case, there is a specific legislation to the contrary under Section 4 (1) of Act 31 of 1978, specifically stating that as and when the notification is issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances including that of the original owner. The special enactment, therefore, bars re-conveyance and therefore, Government order is bad. 8. In view of all foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Government order in G.O.Ms.No.123, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 010. 2004 is quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.