K.N. SOMASUNDARAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions seek compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30/2013) (hereinafter referred to as "The Right to Fair Compensation Act"). Broadly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein own several plots of land spread over various survey numbers at Sozhanganallur Village and Taluk, Kanchipuram District. According to the petitioners, their property was sought to be acquired Vide notification dated 26.07.1990 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 06.6.1990, and thereafter an award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 23.11.2001. Earlier the petitioners have moved this Court by filing W.P.No.38302 of 2003, W.P.No.38303 of 2003 abd W.P.No.38304 of 2003 respectively with a prayer that notwithstanding the acquisition of lands and passing of awards, no compensation was paid and their properties too have not been utilised, and accordingly sought a direction from this Court invoking section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court allowed the said writ petitions which forms part of an order in a batch of writ petitions, with a direction to consider their representations.

(2.) Some of the facts pertaining to the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20164 to 20166 of 2014 and the subsequent writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1453 to 1455 of 2015 have been disclosed in the affidavits of the petitioners filed in support of the present petitions. When these facts are brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier posting, this Court insisted the petitioners to file an affidavit to this fact and a common affidavit was filed which merely states that there was an omission merely on the part of the petitioners to inform the present counsel of those proceedings, but on the legal consequences that flow from the earlier orders, petitioners chose to remain silent (a) as to the nature of their pleadings in their earlier petitions and (b) the nature of the orders passed and its consequences and implications.

(3.) Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Vivekavanan, learned counsel for the second respondent.