P AMMASI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894), dated 31. 5. 1991 as well as declaration made under Sectin 6 (1) in G. O. Ms. No. 445, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16. 7. 1992 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner's land in Survey No. 90/2a to an extent of 0. 53. 0 hectares situated at Kottagoundampatti village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

(2.) ACQUISITION of land in the petitioner's village was made for a public purpose, i. e. for construction of houses by Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the Salem Neighbourhood Scheme. The petitioner's name finds a place in Section 4 (1) notification as well as Section 6 declaration. The petitioner had not explained as to how he had not objected to acquisition of land. He had also not filed any writ petition immediately when the proceedings were initiated by respondents. In fact, as per the admission of the petitioner, Form No. 9 was issued intimating the award under Section 12 (2) in favour of the petitioner and his brother one Subramani.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that possession is still in the hands of the petitioner and patta obtained from the respondents shows that even during 2008 in the name of the petitioner. It is also seen from the records the petitioner has filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 14406 of 1991, challenging 4 (1) notification, dated 31. 5. 1991 made in G. O. Ms. No. 902, Housing and Urban Development department, dated 31. 5. 1991. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by an order of this court, dated 30. 1. 2002 after holding that it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the notification issued under Section 4 (1 ). The petitioner along with three others preferred a writ appeal being W. A. No. 1241 of 2002. A division bench of this court dismissed the writ appeal on 10. 8. 2006, confirming the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was very much aware of proceedings initiated under Section 4 (1 ).