PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. K.JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue to be decided is about the validity, legality and constitutionality of the proposal to initiate acquisition by invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 40 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The Writ Petitioners/respondents in these Writ Appeals are owners of small extent of lands out of an extent of 7/28/50 Hectares, in respect of which, the first appellant has issued G.O.Ms.No.148, Public (Military), Department, dtd. 23/2/2018, insofar as the acquisition in respect of the Writ Petitioners' land is concerned. As per the said Government Order, the acquisition was proposed for re-habilitation package for the displaced Inayathukanpatti villagers invoking urgency provisions of the Act.

(3.) It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Tanjore, forwarded an application submitted by an individual to the Deputy Tahsildar seeking an information whether the land in S.Nos.4 and 5 in Inayathukanpatti village in Tanjore District is under any acquisition for the expansion of airport station and airport run way. It is informed by the seventh appellant that no land in S.Nos.4 and 5 of Inayathukanpatti village is under any acquisition. It was, thereafter, a few layouts were approved and the Writ Petitioners and two others have also purchased the plots in the approved layout. It was thereafter, by the impugned Government Order, an extent of 7.28.5 Hectares of land is proposed to be acquired for re-habilitation package for Inayathukanpatti villagers in Tanjore District by invoking the urgency clause.