ALIFULLAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. A. NO. 711 of 2001 has been preferred by the appellants / petitioners against the order, dated 30. 10. 2000, made in W. P. No. 3499 of 2000. W. A. No. 2137 of 2002 has been preferred by the same appellants / petitioners, against the order, dated 03. 06. 2002, made in W. P. No. 6530 of 1994. In both the writ appeals, the appellants and respondents 1 and 2 are one and the same, though respondents 3 to 12 in W. A. No. 2137 of 2002 are individuals, claiming rights as allottees of house sites by the state.

(2.) IN W. P. No. 3499 of 2000, the appellants / petitioners have challenged the Award No. 7/93-94, dated 28. 03. 1994, passed by the respondents 1 and 2, on the ground that no notice was served on them and no prior approval from the District Collector was obtained from the Land Acquisition Officer before passing the award. It is seen from the records that the award was passed as early as 28. 03. 1994 and the same was also known to the appellants herein, as per the counter filed in the earlier writ petition and that there is no dispute with regard to the said facts. As per the finding of the learned single Judge, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have filed the said writ petition in 2000, 5 years after the order was passed and there was no explanation for the delay of five years, though the petitioners have stated that they came to know about the land acquisition proceedings and award only on a later date. The learned single Judge, in the impugned order in W. P. No. 3499 of 2000 has observed as follows in paragraph number 3 of the order now under challenge :

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellants / petitioners, they had purchased the land on 12. 01. 1989 in Survey No. 121/5 with an extent of 4 acres and 40 cents at Sakkarai Kottai Village and spent a huge amount for putting up barbed fence and for making irrigation facilities and they also dug a well and also planted coconut sapplings. They have further contended that the land was acquired, despite the fact that the land purchased by them at Bharathi Nagar was already acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of allotment of house sites, though alternative sites were available and that the appellants had no other land, except the land that was sought to be acquired. It is seen from the finding of the learned single Judge that the respondents 1 and 2 have denied the averments of the appellants with reference to raising of coconut plantations, spending huge amount for other developments of the land as untrue. In the writ appeal, the appellants have stated that the award, dated 28. 03. 1994 was not served on the appellants and therefore, there is no latches on the part of the appellants in challenging the award passed by the second respondent herein. They also contended that the second respondent has not obtained prior approval from the competent authorities and that the procedures as contemplated under the Central Act was not followed in passing the award.