P DEVENDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings of certain lands in S. Nos. 85/2, 85/3 and 85/5 for an extent of 0. 27 acres, 5. 26 acres and 1. 90 acres respectively in Thiruvanmiyur village.

(2.) FOR the implementation of the Besant Nagar Phase II scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Government sought to acquire certain lands including the petitioner's lands by a notification under sec. 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') which was published in the Gazette on 9. 8. 1978. The declara-tion under Sec. 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 8. 8. 1981. The petitioner challenged the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act by way of Writ petitionno. 10128 of 1981 in respect of those lands, mentioned above, on the ground that he has got an approved layout in respect of S. No. 85/3 prior to the publication of notice under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act and that he is entitled to get exclusion of layouts approved prior to the publication of notification under sec. 4 (l) of the Act. Mohan, J. (as he then was) allowed the Writ Petition No. 10128 of 1981 by order dated 23. 1. 1984 thereby quashing the declaration under sec. 6 of the Act. The learned Judge remitted the matter back to the Government. Subsequently the State preferred a writ appeal in W. A. No. 304 of 1985 against this order. The First Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal on 1. 3. 1990. After the disposal of the writ appeal, the petitioner received a notice on 28. 1. 1991 calling upon him to appear submit his objections to the notification under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act dated 9. 8. 1978. The petitioner having filed objections, has come up to this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings issued under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act and published on 9. 8. 1978. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the notice issued to the petitioner is not valid in law since a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act cannot be made after three years after the publication of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the act. It is also alleged that there has been a gross and culpable inaction on the part of the respondents in not implementing the orders of this Court within a reasonable time. It is also stated that the respondents themselves exempted the lands abutting the petitioner's lands on all the sides and that their proceeding with the petitioner's land alone is discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that if the acquisition is allowed to be proceeded with, the petitioner will be paid compensation at the market rate of the year 1978 whereas the lands, if acquired after 1990, the compensation will be illusory. With these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the prayer as stated above.

(3.) CONSIDERING the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and of the learned Government Advocate (Housing), I am of the view that the facts of the case which are placed before me, in all force are one and the same to the case decided in Vadari alias chellappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1990)1 M. L. J. 219, cited supra. In my view the judgment of this Court, mentioned supra, squarely applies to the facts of this case and the respondents cannot escape from that.