Judgment :- M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. 1. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petitions being W.P. Nos. 16274 of 2008 and 15694 of 2008 for quashing the orders of the first Respondent dated 16.09.2005 and 03.11.2005 rejecting his representation for release of the land under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act and to direct the Respondent to re-convey the land in Survey No.251/2 measuring an extent of 1 Acre 38.5 Cents at Padi Village, Ambattur and to execute re-conveyance deed. 2. It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu, by Notification dated 12.11.1975, initiated Land Acquisition proceedings followed by declaration dated 26.01.1976 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The awards were passed in respect of Survey Nos.251/1 and 251/2 in the year 1983 and 1984 respectively. 3. The Appellant’s case was that, initially the Tamil Nadu Housing Board wanted to acquire the land of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner and others for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The land was required for implementation of the Housing Scheme as well as for the formation of the railway line, and the railway road called Inner Circular Road. The Appellant filed representation to the Government requesting to release his land and to re-convey the same to him on the ground that the land could not be developed either for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme or for railway project. Appellant-Writ Petitioner alleged that the Inner Circular Road is no longer required in view of the abandonment of the Neighbourhood Scheme. The contention of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner was that about 33 years passed away from the date of Notification, but the Housing Board did not proceed an inch of its object. It was alleged that in certain areas, the Government, even after initial rejection of representations of the land owners for re-conveyance of the land under Section 48-B, and after resubmitting the same once again by the landowners, the lands have been re-conveyed in their favour. It was contended by the Appellant-Writ Petitioner that the authorities have acted discriminately and adopted colourable exercise of their powers inasmuch as taking decision for reconveyance in favour of some of the landowners and rejecting the same in respect of the other landowners. 4. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No.38821 of 2003 which was disposed off on 31.12.2003 directing the Appellant-Writ Petitioner to make representation to the proper authorities. Accordingly, the Appellant-Writ Petitioner made representation to the Government. 4. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No.38821 of 2003 which was disposed off on 31.12.2003 directing the Appellant-Writ Petitioner to make representation to the proper authorities. Accordingly, the Appellant-Writ Petitioner made representation to the Government. That time, the Government informed the Appellant-Writ Petitioner that there is a proposal for the usage of the land for railway project for the Inner Circular Road. In another Writ Petition being W.P. No.39402 of 2002, which was disposed off on 17.09.2003, this Court directed the Appellant-Writ Petitioner to make representation under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a representation was filed by the Appellant-Writ Petitioner for re-conveyance of the land, but the same was rejected stating that the land cannot be re-conveyed. The Appellant-Writ Petitioner further alleged that the Survey No.224/1 which was the subject matter in the earlier Writ Petitions viz., W.P. Nos.38820/2003 to 38822/2003, which was earlier rejected, has been allowed and re-conveyance orders have been passed under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of other land owners. 5. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent-Housing Board it was stated that the land in question was reserved for Inner Circular Road for rail alignment, which was dropped in the year 2006, and subsequently, it was decided to construct a Hostel for working women and a Home for Senior Citizens as per the Board’s Resolution No.5.04 dated 27.06.2008, and the land in question is required for the purpose of the scheme to be executed by the Housing Board. 6. Learned Single Judge after discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court held that the relief sought for by the Writ Petitioner cannot be granted. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, then after the public purpose is achieved, the rest of the lands can be used for any other public purpose. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, then after the public purpose is achieved, the rest of the lands can 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, owners, the lands should be put to public auction so that the amount fetched in the public auction can be utilized for other public purposes. But, in the instant case, one of the main contention of the Appellant is that the Respondent-State is behaving in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously argued on the point of discrimination. It is contended that the land of one Mr. Santhanam, who was one of the Writ Petitioner, along with the lands of the Appellant and one Mr. Dakshinamoorthy have been acquired, but later it was released and reconveyed to them, expect the Appellant, in view of the order of the Division Bench in W.A. No.324 of 2007. The said order of the Division Bench has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that in such a situation when the Appellant’s lands are covered under Section 4(1) notification of Santhanam’s land, which is adjacent to the Appellant’s land, his land should also be reconveyed. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter has been specifically raised before the learned Single Judge, but the same has not been appreciated. 9. We have gone through the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellant being W.P. Nos.15694 and 16274 of 2008. In W.P. No.15694 of 2008, a categorical statement has been made in para-10 of the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “I beg to submit that the Respondents while replying to the letters of the Petitioner strongly contended that the land is required for ICC scheme or for their Housing Board Project. But they did not implemented both the projects. In W.P. No.15694 of 2008, a categorical statement has been made in para-10 of the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “I beg to submit that the Respondents while replying to the letters of the Petitioner strongly contended that the land is required for ICC scheme or for their Housing Board Project. But they did not implemented both the projects. Contrary some of the lands notified for the above project adjacent to the Petitioner’s land have been occupied by the land grabbers and these lands grabbers by putting small houses in the land and they are selling land with small houses to the various third parties or public and Government did not do any action on those properties. Added to that some of the lands, when the Government earlier rejected for re-conveyance considered once again to the same persons after a period of few months and re-conveyed the same. Thus, there is discrimination on the same set of people colourable exercise of Respondents. It is strange to note that the Survey No.224/1, which is the subject matter in the earlier W.P. Nos.38820/2003 to 38822/2003 which was earlier rejected has been allowed and re-conveyance orders also passed under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, for helpless people, the Government rejecting the representation and for the people who are able to approach the Government for the reasons best known to them are able to get clearance from the Government. Such indiscrimination and colourable exercise, mala fide decisions have been done from person to person without taking into consideration into reality of the facts. Thus the Petitioner herein even made a representation dated 22.12.2007 by indicating all these reasons and also the Government Orders passed by the Government and Housing and Urban Development Department dated 6.10.2003, 3.11.2005 and 20.12.2006. The above letters of the Government would clearly establish the following: (a) Government Letter No.3088/LA.1(2)/2005-07, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 3.11.2005; (b) G.O. Ms.No.343, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.12.2006; and (c) G.O. Ms.No.254, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 6.10.2003, and these letters are self-explanatory the manner in which the Government has handled.” 10. In the Counter Affidavit filed in the aforementioned Writ Petitions, the aforementioned statement has not been denied by the Respondents rather a very evasive reply has been given. In the Counter Affidavit filed in the aforementioned Writ Petitions, the aforementioned statement has not been denied by the Respondents rather a very evasive reply has been given. Similarly, in W.P. No.16274/2008, a related statement has also been made in para-10, which too has also not been denied by the Respondents. 11. In the aforesaid premises, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned Government Order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner/Appellant for reconveyance suffers from serious arbitrariness or discrimination? 12. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram versus State of Harayana, 2010 (2) CTC 336 (SC) : 2010 (3) SCC 621 . In that case, it appears that the lands were acquired for Urban Mini Estate by the Harayana Urban Development Authority, and for the said purpose, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Many land owners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, and finally declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be passed. Some of the land owners filed Writ Petitions challenging the “acquisition proceedings and also prayed for release of their respective lands. In the meantime, an award was passed for the lands measuring 172.57 acres only and the State Government decided to release the lands of 13 land owners measuring 0.44 acres and a release order was also passed. The Court found that the lands of more than 40 land owners, out of the same acquisition proceedings, have been released by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. However, the representation of the Appellant was rejected on the ground that the lands shall be used for other purpose. Holding the action of the Respondents/State discriminatory, their Lordships held: (paras.41 to 43 – p.636) “41. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same Acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same Acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to the same Acquisition proceedings and for the same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory. 42. More so, it is not even the case of the Respondents that release of land from acquisition in favour of various landowners, as noticed above, was in violation of any statutory provision or actuated with ulterior motive or done due to some mistake or contrary to any public interest. As a matter of fact, vide order dated 19.8.2008, this Court gave an opportunity to the State Government to consider the representations of the Appellants for release of their land and pass appropriate order but the State Government considered their representations in light of the policy dated 26.10.2007 ignoring and overlooking the fact that for none of the landowners whose lands have been released from acquisition, the policy dated 26.10.2007 was applied. The State Government has sought to set up make-believe grounds to justify its action that development planning has been kept into consideration and that the Appellants have been offered developed plots of double the area of construction while the fact of the matter is that in some cases where the plots were vacant and had no construction, the entire plot has been released from acquisition and also the cases where one room or two rooms construction was existing, the whole of plot has been released. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners having plots of size from 150 sq yd to 1500 sq yd, if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must hold good for the Appellants’ lands as well. 43. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners having plots of size from 150 sq yd to 1500 sq yd, if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must hold good for the Appellants’ lands as well. 43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the Appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same Acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of the State Government in treating the present Appellants differently although they are situated similar to the landowners whose lands have been released cannot be countenanced and has to be declared bad in law.” 13. The facts of the instant case is exactly similar to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. Hence, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram versus State of Harayana, 2010 (2) CTC 336 (SC) : 2010 (3) SCC 621 , we have no hesitation in holding that the action of the Respondents in rejecting the representation filed by the Appellant and refusing to release the land, which could not be used till date, in favour of the Appellant is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. The impugned Government Order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 14. We therefore, allow these Appeals, set aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge and direct the Respondents to reconsider the representation of the Appellant and take a decision in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.