P VELRAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 19030 to 19036 of 1999 dated 15. 10. 2001. Since the questions raised in these writ appeals are same, all the appeals were heard together and shall be governed by the present common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants in all these appeals claim that on 22. 7. 1997 they purchased lands on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of the original owner of the lands, namely, P. Asirvatham, relating to Survey Nos. 483, 485 and 486 at Mogappair Village . THE lands purchased by the appellants as well as several other lands belonging to different persons were covered under Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", in G. O. Rt. No. 261 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23. 10. 1975. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 9. 11. 1978. THE present dispute is confined to Survey nos. 483 and 485. Some of the land owners had challenged the land acquisition proceedings. A Division Bench of this Court had set aside the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act by order dated 8. 1. 1988, but notification under section 4 (1) of the Act had been kept intact. However, the land owners had taken the matter to the Supreme Court contending that notification under section 4 (1) of the Act should have been quashed. By order dated 21. 8. 1990, while allowing such appeals of the land owners, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "the State has not challenged the order of the High court and the land owners are the petitioners before this Court. THE short question raised is that the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act which came into force in 1967 required the declaration to be made within three years from the date of the preliminary notification. On the date the declaration was made there were hardly two days left for completion of three years and after the High Court's order on 8. 1. 1988, the period has already lapsed but no declaration has been published and the same can no longer be made on the basis of preliminary notification at present. In the absence of challenge by the State, the order of the High Court against it has become final. We are of the view that in these circumstances it would no more be available to the State to make the requisite declaration under section 6 of the Act. THE acquisition itself is quashed but we make it clear that it is open to the State Government in case it is satisfied that acquisition is necessary in public interest, it is free to exercise its power of eminent domain and make a fresh preliminary notification. THE Special Leave petitions are disposed of accordingly. "

(3.) THE learned single Judge repelled the contention of the petitioner by relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in w. A. Nos. 1144 and 1145 of 1996 dated 17. 1. 1997 and by observing that the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP. Nos. 11353 to 11355 of 1988, whereunder the notification under Section 4 (1) was quashed, related to the property of the land owners who had filed appeal before the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the following observation of the Division Bench was extracted by the learned single Judge :- "it may be pointed out here that the subject matter of the writ petition No. 743/1991 and connected writ petitions (T. A. Samuel and another V. State of Tamil Nadu and others) was not the entire acquisition proceedings, it was only in respect of certain lands belonging to the petitioners therein. It was that matter which was carried to the Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 11353 to 11355/1988 (A. S. Naidu and others etc. v. State of tamilnadu and others etc.) which was disposed of on the aforesaid terms on the ground that there weas no scope for complying with the requirement that the declaration under S. 6 of the Act should be made within three years from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act as contemplated by the Tamilnadu Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, which came into force in 1967. THErefore, the whole acquisition proceedings was quashed. Thus, the acquisition pertaining the remaining lands was not at all in question and the notifications issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, the declaration made under S. 6 of the Act and the awards pertaining to other lands remained in tact. "