A DHANALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common issues are involved in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and they were disposed of by means of this common order. The petitioner in W. P. No. 9860 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 241/1; 241/2; 241/3; 242/1; 242/2; 242/3; 242/4; 250/1; 263/2; 265/2; 278/1 and 278/4. Similarly, the petitioner in W. P. No. 9861 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 261/1A; 282/3; 240/2, 264/2, 264/3; 264/4; 265/1, 266, 268/4 and 275 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 9862 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey No. 242/6 of Perumbakkam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and district.

(2.) BEFORE going into the facts of the case, let me first analyse the law on the subject. In OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, has held as follows:

(3.) APPLYING the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are looked into, the Tiruvallore District started functioning from 1. 1. 1997 and even before that, Master Plan Complex Committee was formed on 14. 10. 1996 and it had submitted its report in the month of February 1997. The impugned G. O. , came to be issued only in the month of January 1998 i. e. nearly after one year and 10 months. This itself would show that there was no real urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act in terms of section 17(4) of the Act. Above all, in these Writ Petitions, the impugned G. O. was stayed by an interim order dated 20. 12. 2002. But, so far the respondents have not taken any steps seeking to vacate the said order. The interim order has been in force for about seven years and as a result, the possession of the lands in question has not been taken. Had it been the existence of real urgency in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act, I am sure, the respondents would not have allowed this much of delay. Having regard to all these facts, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the instant case, I find no such grave urgency in issuing the Government Order for dispensing with the enquiry under section 5A of the Act.