V PADMAVATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above writ petitions have been filed with one and the same object sought to be achieved to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent/Government connecting to G.O.Ms.No.188, Housing and Urban Development, dated 6.2.1986 and to quash the same.

(2.) AT the outset it is relevant to point out that the parties connected to both the above writ petitions especially the petitioners being related to each other and members of one and the same family and the properties concerned with both these writ petitions having originated from the common ancestor, which ultimately fell to the shares of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the petitioners in W.P.No.15590 of 1988 being sisters and petitioners in W.P.No.15591 of 1988 being brothers and mother and the properties also since falling under the same S.No. one and same village and the respondents too being the same in both the above writ petitions, hearing both the above writ petitions jointly, this common order is passed with proper appreciation.

(3.) ON the part of the petitioners in both the above writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no proper purpose of necessity for the respondents to acquire the entire properties covered in both the above writ petitions; that though it is said to be for the construction of houses for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Scheme, no concrete steps have been taken on the part of the respondents towards achieving the said project; that the lands of the second petitioner in the first writ petition above have been exempted from the acquisition proceeding; that the other lands belonging to the other petitioners in both the writ petitions are only contiguous parts of the lands belonging to the second petitioner in the first writ petition, without which the respondents cannot get the site at a stretch and form the scheme; that moreover what best reasons have been attributed on the part of the Government for granting exemption in favour of the second petitioner in the first writ petition in relieving her lands from acquisition proceeding, very well applies to the other writ petitioners; lands also and in such conditions, these writ petitioners cannot be discriminated against, since there cannot be any discrimination in the eye of law and thus would pray for quashing the G.O. in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are concerned.