STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 16. 9. 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 6001 of 1990, 14396 ,15994 and 15995 of 1988. W. A. Nos. 28 to 31 of 1992 are by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sub Collector, Coimbatore against the common order dated 16. 9. 1991 by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 6001 of 1990, 14396, 15994, 15995 of 1988. Whereas W. A. Nos. 37 to 40 of 1992 are also preferred against the very same order by V. L. B. Trust, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore district for whose benefit the acquisition in question is made. All these writ petitions are decided by a common order. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the State government and V. L. B. Trust have come up in these writ appeals.

(2.) IN the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the time gap between the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act on 21. 11. 1984 and publication of the substance of the said notification in the locality on 29. 11. 1985 have vitiated the acquisition proceedings" (ii) Whether the time gap between the two publications has been explained by the two publications has been explained by the acquiring authority" (iii) Whether the time gap between the two publications has caused any prejudice to the petitioners" (iv) Whether the petitioners are guilty of laches" (v) Whether the order of the learned single judge is liable to be interfered with"

(3.) ON the contrary, it is the contention of Mr. Habibullah badsha, learned Senior Counsel, that the time gap is so long that both are unlinked as such in law it amounts to non-publication of the substance of the notification issued under Sec. 4 (l) in the locality, therefore, it must be held that there is non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of causing public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality. Consequently, according to him, the question of demonstrating any prejudice caused to the petitioners does not arise.