A JOTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings made under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) W. P. No. 16200 of 1990 is filed by the owners of the land and W. P. No. 6298 of 1991 is filed by the agreement holder who entered into an agreement with the petitioners in W. P. No. 16200 of 1990.

(3.) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. No.-16200 of 1990 is that certain acquisition proceedings were taken up earlier, in the year 1976, that it had been dropped and as such the acquisition made in this case is tainted with mala fides and has got to be set aside. THE learned counsel contends that this Court should presume that the earlier acquisition proceedings were dropped only because the lands were not suitable and as such when once the lands are left out in the earlier proceedings it cannot be said that they are suitable for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars. One other contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent, the enquiry officer, has given a finding, based on the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act, that the lands are to be acquired for the purpose for which it is acquired, that it is bad in law and that the first respondent has not applied its mind. THE learned counsel further contends that the acquisition proceedings has to be struck down on the ground of delay of one year between the date of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act and the declaration under sec. 6 of the Act.