V VENKATASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for in all these Writ Petitions are identical and common grounds have been raised by the petitioners and therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners have sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the awards passed by the fourth respondent bearing Award Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 of 2010, dated 15.03.2010/07.04.2010/07.05.2010 and 21.05.2010 and to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated for acquiring the petitioners' land for formation of Outer Ring Road proposed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as lapsed.

(3.) Mr.N.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after setting out the factual position submitted that the petitioners had filed Writ Petitions challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in W.P.Nos.761 of 2007 etc., batch and when the Writ Petitions were entertained, an order of stay of dispossession was granted. Ultimately, the Writ Petitions were dismissed by common order dated 02.12.2010 and consequently, the interim order was vacated. The Writ Appeals, preferred by the petitioners in W.A.Nos.115 of 2011 etc., batch, were dismissed by the First Bench of this Court by judgment dated 04.03.2011 and the Special Leave Petitions filed against the said judgment was also dismissed in limine on 08.07.2011. It is submitted that thus on and after the dismissal of the Writ Petitions on 02.12.2010, there was no interim order protecting the possession of the petitioners and the Writ Appeals as well as the Special Leave Petitions were all dismissed in limine. Therefore, for computation of the period within which the award should have been passed, should be reckoned with effect from 02.12.2014 and if the award has not been validly passed within the period stipulated under the Act, the entire acquisition has to be held to have been lapsed. It is further submitted that the petitioners met the District Collector on 09.02.2015, and submitted a representation pursuant to which a meeting was called for on 13.02.2015 and it was represented to the District Collector that no award has been passed nor the petitioners were informed about passing of the award and the officials were directed to furnish the same to the petitioners. It is submitted that only thereafter, copies of the impugned alleged awards, without signature of the concerned authority, were furnished to the petitioners and admittedly, the passing of the award was communicated to the petitioners only during February 2015 and the award amount has been deposited only on 01.06.2015, before the Civil Court and the said awards are impugned in these Writ Petitions and are liable to be quashed.