M D GOVINDARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ appeals, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8507 and 1987 are the appellants. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in two writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per array in the writ petitions. The petitioners are aggrieved over the acquisition proceedings prosecuted under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as " the Act proceedings under the Act have come to the stage of passing of awards. However, petitioners wanted to quash the very notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The single Judge did not countenance the case of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions subject to a direction that in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.8507 of 1987 the reference under Sec.31 of the Act shall be withdrawn, because the petitioner therein alone is to the compensation amount. These two writ appeals are directed against the common of the learned single Judge.

(2.) BEFORE us, Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, put in the forefront two points, coveting interference at our hands. The first point taken that for the making of the awards which events happened in September, 1986 after introduction of the first proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act by Act 68 of 1984, there had been no previous approval of the Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf and hence the awards passed must be down. The second point taken is that the awards were passed not in the presence petitioners and no notice thereof was given to the petitioners immediately thereafter notices were given only in July, 1987, and this feature practically made the acquisition proceedings culminating in the awards giving compensation illusory and abrogated the of the petitioners to receive the compensation amount at the earliest point of time. find that in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the first point has been The averments in both the affidavits are to the same effect and it is sufficient, if we the relevant portions of the affidavit in W.P.No.8507 of 1987, as follows:

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would further and submit that by the infirmities suffered in the passing of the awards proceedings under the Act prosecuted against the petitioners and taking note of infirmities the awards will have to be struck down; the proceedings under the Act could be prosecuted at all against the petitioners on the basis of the notification under and the consequent declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, so as to pass any fresh because the amendments to Sec.6 of and introduction of Sec.11-A into the Act by Act 1984 will come in the way. When we look into these provisions and understand implications, we are convinced that what the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is tenable.