CHITHRA RANGACHARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein seek a Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from acquiring the land in S.No.69/1A and 69/2B, Nesapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai-MGR District on the strength of the notification issued in G.O. Ms. No.412, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 9-5-1975. The basis of their claim is that they became the owners of Plot Nos.15 to 18 (Extent 4615 and 4260 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1 and 69/2), Plot No.13 (Extent 2414 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A), Plot No.14 (Extent 2201 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A and 69/2B), Plot No.5 (Extent 2263 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A and 69/2B), Plot No.12 (Extent 2414 sq.ft. in S.No.69/1A) and Plot No.6 (Extent 1223 sq.ft. in S.No.69/2B) respectively. They further plead that the lands were covered to the extent of 37 cents in S. No.69/1A and 67 cents in S.No.69/2B referred to earlier. The lands were originally owned by one R. Kandasamy and thereafter the said lands were plotted out and sold to different buyers and petitioners being one of them.

(2.) Petitioners then refer to the Notification dated 11-6-1975 issued under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. They also refer to the subsequent notification issued on 9-6-1978 under Sec.6 of the said Act. They point out that R. Kandasamy had filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No.2338 of 1987 to quash the land acquisition proceedings and this Court, by its order dated 11-3-1987, granted stay of dispossession. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 24-10-1991, following the order dated 8-10-1991, passed in W.P. No.3693 of 1996. The notification was thus quashed.

(3.) A statement has been made that there were no steps taken for acquisition of the land and no fresh notification was also issued. Petitioners then claim that taking advantage of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Amendment Act, 1992 (T.N. Act 5/92), the respondents are threatening to interfere with the possession of the petitioners on the assumption that the earlier notifications, which were already quashed, would be revived by reason of Act 5 of 1992. Petitioners, therefore, point out that since the earlier notification had already been quashed by this Court in W.P. No.2338 of 1987, there would be no question of revival of those notifications by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1992. It is, therefore, contended that the action on the part of the State Government is patently incorrect.