N AMARAVATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was no representation on behalf of the petitioners either at 11.30 a.m. or at 12.30 p.m. Hence these matters were passed over and called at 2.15 and again at 4.00 p.m. Even then there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence I was constrained to hear the learned counsel for the respondents and pass the following order.

(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are concededly purchasers of vacant lands in Survey Nos.376/2, 378, 379, 380, 381/1, 381/2, 382, 383, 384, 388, 398, 392 part and 402 (14.09 acres) (petitioner in W.P.No.9627/98), 397 part (46 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9628/98), 393 (49 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9629/98), 391 part, 398 part and 399 part (97 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9630/98), 391 part (49 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9631/98), 401 part and 402 part (48 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9632/98) and 397 part (25 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9633/98) respectively in Nerkundram Village, Chinmayanagar, Chengelpet District, which are governed under the land acquisition proceedings subsequent to the issuance of a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 8.5.1975, from one P.M.Sundaram and others. It is true that the original owners of the lands agitated against the said acquisition proceedings before this Court and also obtained interim stay of the said proceedings by order dated 3.4.1981 in WMP.No.2557 of 1981 in Writ Petition No.1807 of 1981 and the main writ petition was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.2.1991 for non prosecution. Against the said order dated 19.2.1991, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, the original owners viz., P.M.Sundaram and others filed WMP.No.15410 of 1991 for restoration of the writ petition. THE said petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.1991. But, thereafter, Review Petition No.21 of 1991 was preferred by the original owners and the same was allowed by order dated 17.9.1991 and thereafter, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.10.1991 following the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Urban Development, Madras and another vs. A.Mohammad Yousuf and others, reported in 1990 (2) Law Weekly 360. But, thereafter, the Apex Court by judgment dated 10.11.1995, following the judgment of the Apex Court dated 1.11.1995 made in Civil Appeal Nos.1865-66 of 1992 and batch, allowed S.L.P. preferred by the State against the order dated 29.10.1991 made in Writ Petition No.1807 of 1981 and as such, the writ petition filed by the original owners of the lands was ultimately dismissed.

(3.) IN this regard, I am obliged to refer the decision in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 88, wherein it is held as follows: "the intervention of the Court in the land acquisition proceedings would prevent the period of limitation from running and the date of final orders of the Court would be the fresh date of start of limitation for the purpose of Section 11A of the Act."No doubt, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in PADMA SUNDARA RAO Vs. STATE OF T.N., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1334 = (2002) 3 SCC 533, overruled the said decision in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, referred supra, but the Constitution Bench made it clear that the ratio laid down in PADMA SUNDARA RAO Vs. STATE OF T.N., referred supra, shall operate only prospectively. IN the instant case, the crucial date for the purpose of computing two years as per Section 11-A of the Act, as per the decision of the Apex Court in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, referred supra, is the date of disposal of the SLP by the Apex Court preferred by the State viz., 10.11.1995, as the impugned acquisition award was passed on 31.10.1997 i.e. prior to the decision in Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of T.N., referred supra, and in which event, the same is well within the period of two years from the date of judgment of the Apex Court dated 10.11.1995. Hence, there is no violation of Section 11-A of the Act.