R SOMASUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal arises under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) THE challenge in the writ petition was to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 9. 8. 1978 and Section 6 declaration dated 23. 12. 1981.

(3.) THE writ petition came to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches because after the 4 (1) notification and 6 declaration, the award came to be made in Award No. 7 of 1986. Pursuant to the said award, possession was also taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as early as on 30. 10. 1986. Thereafter, it is stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board handed over the lands to Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 17. 5. 1994. The appellants, who slept over the matter, suddenly woke up in the year 1996 and came forward with the abovesaid writ petition contending that though the name of the writ petitioner Tmt. Rajeswari was specifically mentioned in section 6 declaration, the appellants were not issued with necessary notice by the acquisition officer prior to the passing of the award. In fact, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, we find that the learned Judge seemed to have called upon the writ petitioners/ appellants to produce the necessary records to show that after the purchase of the land mutation was carried out in the Revenue Records and that the appellants were in possession of any such document in support of the said claim. Unfortunately, in spite of three opportunities extended to the appellants, the appellants were not able to substantiate with necessary records to show that the name of the appellants were incorporated in the Revenue Records in order to find fault with the acquisition authorities for not having issued necessary notice to the appellants. The learned Judge, therefore, held that at the highly belated point of time i. e. nearly after 15 years, it would be wholly unjustifiable to interfere with the acquisition proceedings when much water had flown after the passing of the award in the year 1986. The learned Judge, relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. L. Krishnan (1996 (1) SCC 250) holding that after a period of five years any challenge to the acquisition proceedings would be hit by laches, ultimately, dismissed the writ petition.