C GOVINDARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth petitioner submits that the father of the first and second petitioner namely P.Chinnathambi Gounder and the father of the petitioners 3 and 4 namely Kullappa Gounder were the owners of the agricultural lands comprised in <FRM>JUDGEMENT_329_LAWS(MAD)8_2015.html</FRM>

(2.) He states that in the said Land Acquisition Proceedings, the lands of the petitioners described in Para-2 are also included and acquired by the respondents. He states that the Award No.10/86-87 under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 19.09.1986 in respect of petitioners' property. He states that though the acquisition proceedings were culminated into an Award on 19.09.1986, but till date may have not received the Award amount and possession of the said property still with them and the respondents did not take steps to take possession of the said property from the petitioners herein. He states that number of Land Owners' approached the first respondent Government with the request to withdraw and exclude their lands from the Acquisition proceedings and the same were considered favourably by the respondents, the details of which are given below:-

(3.) He states that on 01.12.1999 itself, the third respondent herein has recommended to the second respondent stating that there is no approach road to reach the petitioners' property and there is no possibility of utilizing the petitioners' lands for any of the Neighbourhood Schemes. He states that on 20.06.2013, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Salem, again recommended that the acquired lands may be excluded from the acquisition proceedings because of the impossibility of its utilization for any Schemes. He states that they have also submitted several representations to the respondents and others right from the year 2001 onwards, requesting them to withdraw their lands from the acquisition proceedings and their last representation dated 07.11.2013 was submitted to the first respondent herein and the first respondent rejected the said request, vide Lr.No.8529/LA42/2010-09, dated 30.12.2013 stating that the said property is very much required for the purpose of "Integrated Housing Scheme" proposed by the second respondent herein. He states that the respondents herein have already dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of major portions of the acquired lands and admittedly the possession of the said property is yet to be taken over by the respondents herein from the petitioners and hence the entire actions of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners herein.