G JOTHILAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the common order passed by the learned single judge, dated 09. 10. 2001, in W. P. Nos. 16583 and 16582 of 1999, the writ petitioner/land owner preferred the above Writ Appeals.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Judge as well as before us, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is that the Awards passed by the Land Acquisition officer (Award Nos. 1/98 and 2/98) are beyond the prescribed period, hence, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(3.) ON going through the details furnished relating to the acquisition proceedings and the orders passed by this Court both in the Stay petitions and the main Writ Petitions, we are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the particulars furnished by the learned government Advocate. In view of the fact that the respondents had time to pass awards till 09. 11. 1999 after excluding the period of stay and disposal of the writ Petitions; and of the fact that award No. 1/98 was passed on 09. 03. 1998 and award No. 2/98 on 10. 09. 1998; the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected.