K. VISHNUPRIYA W/O. T R.S. KARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the records relating to G.O.(RT) No. 239 dated. 21.4.2004 and the declaration made in Government Gazette No. 112 dated 30.4.2004. To be precise, the petitioner is seeking for quashing the land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) THE allegations made in the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In such counter affidavit it has been submitted that in G.O.Ms. No. 348, Public Works Department dated 29.6.1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued administrative sanction for the scheme of extending the Nilayur Channel from the upstream of Perungudi tank of Madurai District to Kambikudi series of Virudhunagar District to feed about 94 tanks in Madurai, Virudhunagar and Sivagangai districts which would benefit 9947 acres of land. It has been stated that the proposals were submitted to the Government for approval of notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act simultaneously invoking urgency clause during October 2002. The Government of Tamil Nadu have approved the notification under Section 4(1) invoking urgency clause under Section 17(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 20 cases out of which award had been passed in respect of 13 cases and further action was being taken for the remaining cases. Notification under Section 4(1) in respect of the disputed land had been approved by G.O.Ms. No. 72, Public Works Department, dated 26.2.2004, which was subsequently published in Government Gazette and Tamil dailies and substance of the notification had also been published. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been approved by the Government on 21.4.2004 and the same has been published on 30.4.2004 in the Government Gazette and thereafter in the newspapers. It is further indicated that as per the observation of the High Court in W.P. No. 6227 of 2004, notice under Section 9(1) of the Act had been sent in the name of the petitioner. The rules have been followed and there has been no violation of any of the provision. It has been further indicated that the lands have been acquired by invoking the urgency clause for which proposal had been sent on 6.8.2002. The petitioner purchased the land only on 7.1.2004. The name of the vendor, who sold the property to the petitioner, has been notified in 4(1) notification and the purchaser had never approached the officials to include her name as the land owner. Importance of the scheme had been projected in the counter and it has been submitted that since it is an irrigation project, the Government has invoked the urgency clause and there is no illegality.