STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals emanate from the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28 th April, 2006 disposing of the concerned writ petitions instituted by the private respondent(s) in the respective appeals. Although four separate writ petitions were filed, one common factum noticed from the factual narration in the impugned judgment is that the property owned and possessed by the private respondents in the concerned appeals came to be acquired for the purpose of implementing the "Mass Rapid Transport System " (for short "MRTS ") Railway Project, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "1894 Act "). After following due process, the acquisition proceedings culminated with the passing of the award and taking over of possession of the concerned property. After possession was taken, the subject property was made over to the appropriate authority for implementation of the Railway Project.

(2.) The private respondent(s) in the respective appeals had, however, unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions in the High Court. While rejecting the challenge, the High Court vide order dated 12 th December, 2003 observed that the appropriate authority of the State Government ought to consider the representation made by the private respondents in the concerned appeals for allotment of a housing site by way of rehabilitation as a special category of displaced persons, in view of the dictum presumably in Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.(1993) 3 SCC 634. (incorrectly mentioned as Lakhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab­1993 AIR SCW 2938 which is a decision in a criminal matter). The operative part of the said order reads thus:

(3.) In furtherance of the direction given by the High Court, the private respondent(s) pursued representation before the State Government. Eventually, the State Government declined to grant any relief to the private respondent(s) and communicated its decision to them vide letter dated 26 th May, 2005. It may be apposite to reproduce one such communication, issued to the private respondent in Civil Appeal No.8625 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No.8630 of 2009. The same reads thus: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(SC)7_2019_Page_1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(SC)7_2019_Page_2.jpg</IMG> In the High Court order first cited, the Hon 'ble Court has dismissed your W.P.M.P.23078/2003 and 11290/2003.