ARUMUGHA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are aggrieved against the issuance of 4(1) notification made in G.O.Ms.No.650 Housing and Urban Development (L.A.III) dated 22.9.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.10.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. In G.O.Ms.No.939, Housing and Urban Development, dated 15.11.1993 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 18.11.1993 in respect of the lands of the petitioners situated in S.No.223/2 and 222/2 Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore, North Taluk, Coimbatore District.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the lands in question in S.No.223/2 and 222/2 to an extent of 1.93.0 Hectares concerned in W.P.Nos.1201 to 1208 of 1997 filed by the heirs of Krishna Gounder and Kuttiammal and after her death on 31.1.2000. Succeeded by her legal representatives, out of the total extent of 10.24.0 Hectares sought to be acquired for the purpose of Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme, originally belonged to one Thiru Krishna Gounder who died on 24.9.1988, that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1202, 1205, 1206, 1207 and 1208 of 1997 were the legal representatives of the said Krishna Gounder, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1201, 1203 and 1204 are the purchasers of the lands in question from the original owners. It is stated that a recognised Private School providing education up to V Standard is being run in part of the said lands. It is claimed that during a preliminary survey conducted by the authorities, the factum of ownership of the petitioners and the running of the school was made known to the concerned Land Acquisition Officer who also recommended for deletion of these lands in view of the existence of the school and also the location of the property in a fringe area as such the exclusion would not affect the purpose of the acquisition.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is not in controversy that the respondents failed to issue necessary notice to the writ petitioners subsequent to Section 6 declaration and the passing of the award, thereby confirming the position that the award came to be passed without service of proper notice on the petitioners. Whose ownership was not in dispute by virtue of the fact that Section 6 declaration came to be made in the names of all the writ petitioners as disclosed by the Gazette Notification itself. THEREFORE, to that extent, it cannot be held that a valid award came to be passed as to hold that no interference could be made after that.