N KESAVAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P. Nos. 10147 and 10148 of 1983 is the appellant in these two writ Appeals. THE respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in these two writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. In W.P. No. 10147 of 1983, the petitioner wanted a declaration that G.O.Ms. No. 583, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 11-8-1983 is null and void in so far as the petitioner is concerned. In W.P. No. 10148 of 1983, the petitioner wanted a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to exclude the concerned land of an extent of 15 cents from G.O.Ms. No. 837, Housing Department dated 15-8-1976 from the land acquisition proceedings. All said, the petitioner wanted the land in question to be excluded from the land acquisition proceedings. One factor that emerged and which proved a deterrent one for the learned single Judge to consider the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner has only the status of a lessee. Taking guidance from the pronouncement in T.K. Sambanda Rao, a registered, partnership Firm by its partners v. THE Union Tettitory of Pondicherry 1984 Writ L.R. 134 S.N, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner has no locus standi to put forth objection to the land acquisition proceedings. We examined the proposition in the light of the pronouncement relied on by the learned single Judge. THE pronouncement in T.K. Sambanda Rao, a registered partnership Firm by its partners v. THE Union Territory of Pondicherry 1984 Writ L.R. 134 S.N has referred to earlier pronouncements. THE earliest pronouncement is one in Krishna Chettiar v. THE Secretary, Harijan Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 665 of 1977, order dt. 12-7-1979. That was taken on appeal and the appellate Judgment is reported in Krishna Chettiar v. THE Secretary, Harijan Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu 1985 Writ L.R. 272. THE Bench of this Court, which rendered the appellate pronouncement countenancing an illegality with reference to non-issue of notices to persons, whose names have found a place in the District Gazette, held that the acquisition proceedings have got to be reopened from the stage of issue of notices under S. 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, herein after referred to as the Act. With reference to the competency of the tenant to question, the Bench did not permit reopening of the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the tenants. THE following observations in the pronouncement of the Bench bring oat the position:

(2.) AT this stage, Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that his client is entitled to be heard on the question of compensation. We are also told by Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the award has not yet been pissed. If this is the factual position, certainly the petitioner will be entitled to all the requisite notices before the passing of the award. We need not express any view of ours on this question on the bare statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage.