TAMIL NADU TECHNICAL EDUCATON DEPARTMENT STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal arises out of the Order dated 05.10.1999 passed in WP No. 3453 of 1992 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 1007, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.06.1991 so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 350 to 371 i.e., 369/4A, 369/4B, 369/5, 371/1, 371/2, 362/2A, 362/2B, 363/6, 368/1, 369/1A, 369/2, 369/3, 352/7, 353/9, 352/1, 350/10A, 350/8, 350/9, 350/10B, 363/1A, 363/4, 363/1B, 363/2, 363/3, 350/11A, 350/11B, 352/4, 352/5, 352/6, 350/1, 365/6, 365/2A, 365/3, 365/4, 365/6A, 365/6B, 366/1A, 367/1 and quash the same.

(2.) The appellant, claiming to be the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Technical Educaton Department Staff Co-operative House-Building Society, comprising of 200 members, who are Government servants, has filed the above writ petition contending interalia that the society has been formed with a view to get suitable lands for constructing houses for the members. It was also contended that the members of the appellant-society are the purchasers of the plots for valuable sale consideration in a lay out area comprised in Survey No. 350 to 371 at No.155, Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai MGR District. The members of the appellant-society also stated to have obtained patta in their favour in respect of their respective lands. According to the appellant, the appellant purchased 14.18 acres of land in the name of the society for valueable consideration. The appellant-society also applied for layout of the house sites in various survey numbers measuring an extent of 8.865 acres with Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the layout approval was also granted vide letter dated 30.11.1989. Pursuant to the obtaining of the approval, the appellant-society also has executed gift deeds in favour of the Sholinganallur Town Panchayat for the purpose of laying roads as per the condition of approval. Subsequently, the Sholinganallur Town Panchayat has also given its approval for the layout as per the proceedings dated 04.01.1990 after collecting the development charges. It was further contended that the society is also in possession of lands to an extent of 5.32 acres which is intended for distribution among the remaining members, who have paid the full cost. While so, the Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) and 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act) vide G.O. Ms. No.474, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.05.1990 for acquisition of 82.84.0 hectares of wet, dry and Manavari lands in Survey Nos. 350 to 371 etc., for implementation of Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase III, sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said notification was also published in the official gazzette on 03.04.1990 and also in one issue of Tamil Daily Dinakaran on 16.06.1990. Thereafter, the appellant-society submitted their objections on 26.06.1990. According to the appellant, the objectinos were not properly considered and they have been overruled on 01.03.1991 without any reasons. However, the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act and it was also published in one issue of Tamil Daily 'Dinakaran'. In the meantime, the appellant society has submitted a letter dated 07.09.1990 to the first respondent praying to delete the lands belonging to the appellant-society from the purview of acquisition proceedings, but the same was rejected and intimated to the appellant on 22.02.1991 vide letter No.30255/LA dated 03.04.1990 stating that the Government has decided to proceed with the acquisition proceedings and it is not feasible to consider the request of the appellant society for deletion of the lands from the purview of acquisition proceedings. Under those circumstances, the appellant society has filed the above writ petition before this Court contending that the purpose for which the society purchased the lands and the purpose for which the said lands are sought to be acquired by the respondents are one and the same and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. It is also contended that since the layout plan has been approved by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, the Government cannot thereafter acquire the said lands.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, however, the learned Government Advocate contended justifying the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired.