DONALD FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he is the owner of the land situated in Survey Nos.293/1 and 293/2, measuring an extent of 0.65.5 hectares at Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District, which was a subject matter of land acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.454 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.05.1990 which was determined to be acquired by the first respondent for public purpose for the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase-II, for the purpose of the housing scheme to be formulated by the requisition Board, namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The process was initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1/1994). By subsequent G.O.Ms.No.996 dated 17.06.1991 Section 6 Declaration was also caused for implementation of the said scheme.

(2.) Though as a land owner covered and proceeded against under the said notifications, he did not choose to challenge the said proceedings independently as the said notification was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in a series of cases which culminated in the order dated 24.07.1996 in W.P.No.10420 of 1991 etc. batch of cases, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench by observing the fact that the Government Order deciding to issue a declaration, did not disclose any consideration of the objections put forth by the land owners and accordingly held that it was not possible to keep the Government Notification under Section 4(1) intact and quash the remaining proceedings in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue and held that the entire proceedings deserved to be quashed and held that the said notifications was incapable to be allowed to stand in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Bench quashed the notifications in its entirety even while allowing the writ petition.

(3.) It is relevant to submit that the obiter and the ratio laid down in the said batch of cases disables the respondents from proceeding further with particular reference to the Section 4(1) and Section (6) declaration and hence binding upon the respondents even with regard to the other lands covered under the said notification. He had approached this Court on earlier occasions, praying for a consideration of his representation to re-convey the said lands to him as the lands of similarly placed owners in the adjoining area which were covered under the said two notifications were litigated by individual owners before this Court and after a long drawn battle, ultimately the lands were re-conveyed under the orders of this Court. In the meantime, the Government issued an order under G.O.Ms.No.254 Housing and Urban Development dated 06.10.2003, whereupon the first respondent had constituted a committee to formulate modalities for taking action for effective utilization of lands and re-conveyance of lands not utilised, wherein they examined the financial burden on the part of the Housing Board to cause acquisition of properties which required payment of enhanced compensation that remained unutilised.