N D RAMANUJAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 15453 to 15455 of 1995 dated 31. 7. 200 2. The appellants/writ petitioners, in their respective writ petition, challenged the award dated 19. 8. 1994, passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned single Judge negatived the contentions of the writ petitioners and consequently dismissed the writ petitions, against which the present writ appeals are preferred.

(2.) (A) Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners made two legal submissions. Firstly the learned Senior counsel contended that the Land Acquisition Officer, who passed the Award, failed to follow the procedures contemplated under Section 9 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of giving 15 days time to appear for the award enquiry. The second contention is that prior approval was not obtained by the Officer from the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf, since the compensation amount in each of the Award is more than Rs. 10/- lakhs. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 30. 7. 1987; Section 6 declaration was published in the gazette on 14. 9. 1988; local publication was made on 16. 9. 1988; and a notice under Section 9 and 10 was issued on 9. 3. 1990. It is further submitted that the acquisition proceedings were challenged on 24. 4. 1990 by filing W. P. No. 5375 and 5 376 of 1990 and an interim stay from this Court was obtained on 30. 4. 1990. This court dismissed the said writ petitions on 5. 4. 1994. (b) The learned Senior Counsel argued that on 11. 8. 1994, notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, for award enquiry was issued with a direction to appear for award enquiry on 18. 8. 1994 and on 18. 8. 1994, a counsel appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners and prayed for time, but however, award was passed on 19. 8. 1994. According to the learned senior Counsel, as such the notice issued to appear for award enquiry, giving less than 15 days time, is vitiated, as it is in contravention of section 9 (2)of the Land acquisition Act. The appellants were not given sufficient time to effectively represent in the award enquiry, which caused prejudice to the appellants. (c) In support of his second contention, the learned Senior counsel drew our attention to ground (c) raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, which reads as follows,

(3.) MR. S. KANDASAMY, learned Special Government Pleader pointed out the defence raised in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer only after getting approval of the government in each stage, no specific date is mentioned in the counter affidavit with regard to the date on which the approval from the competent authority was obtained prior to passing of the award on 19. 8. 1994.