P. SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.P.Subramani has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1851 of 2012, dtd. 11/12/2012, in which, Writ Court has agreed with the case of the writ petitioner that the declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to Survey Nos.83/1E3, 88/4B and 88/7 got lapsed, however, in respect 6 other survey numbers, namely, S.Nos.88/4A, 88/4C, 89/1B, 89/1C, 90/1 and 91/2, since the award was passed on 7/9/1995, the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed. Challenging that portion of the order, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated below:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner argued that the first proviso to Sec. 11(1) envisages that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Whileso, in the present case, the award dtd. 22/8/1995 passed in Award No.3/95-96, signed on 25/8/1995, was approved by the District Revenue Officer, Salem, only on 1/9/1995, which is much after the date of the award, and it was finally pronounced on 7/9/1995 by the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Neighborhood Scheme, Salem. Therefore, he pleaded, the award passed without complying with the mandatory conditions mentioned in the first proviso to Sec. 11(1) being a null and void one, the same is liable to be set aside.