MUTHUSWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions can be considered, and disposed of together since they relate to the same acquisition and declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the learned counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common.

(2.) THE above writ petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Act and in G. O. Ms. No. 2171, adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 20. 11. 1989 in so far as the lands of the respective writ petitioners are concerned. THE petitioners in W. P. No. 14595 of 1990 claimed to be the sons of late Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o. Muthusamy Moopanar, the original owner of Survey No. 138/12b. THE petitioner in W. P. No. 15225 of 1990 claims to be the owner of the property in Survey No. l38/13b. W. P. No. 15226 of 1990 has been filed by a person claiming to be the owner of Survey No. 138/10 and he claims title under a Will said to have been executed on 6. 7. 1963 by his aunt by name Poonjolai Ammal, stated to be the original owner of the said item of land.

(3.) SO far as the ground and grievance made on the absence of simultaneous publication, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself fairly stated on going through the materials and details frunished in the counter-affidvit that the publication has been effected within 25 days. The same could not be said to suffer any infirmity in law.