K.JOHNSON Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the G.O(MS)No.148 Public (Military) Department, dated 23.02.2018, of the 1st respondent in so far as the acquisition of land, covered under the three writ petitions, proposed for rehabilitation package for the displaced Inayathukanpatti Villagers under Urgency provisions of the Right to Fair Companesation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and quash the same direct the respondents to restore the lands to the petitioners.

(2.) The impugned G.O(Ms)No.148 Public (Military) Department, dated 23.02.2018 of the 1st respondent granted administrative sanction for acquisition of 65.12.57 hectares of Dry and Manai Lands and alienation of 5.48.5 hectares of Government Poromboke land in Inayathukkanpatti Village in Tanjavur, for extension of Airfield at Airforce station, Tanjavur District and for the rehabilitation of the villagers of the Inayathukkanpatti Village, invoking the urgency provision under Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. An extent of 7.28.50 hectares of land from out of the 65.12.57 hectares of private land covered under the notification are specifically earmarked for rehabilitation of the villagers of Inayathukkanpatti Village who are displaced on account of land acquisition for the project. The survey numbers of the land meant for rehabilitation are also specifically mentioned in the impugned Government Order.

(3.) The petitioners assail the impugned GO on several counts. They allege that the impugned GO in respect of the lands covered under the writ petitions do not come under the purview of Section 40 of the Act which gives special powers to the State in cases of urgency for specific purposes. It was alleged that there is no explanation under the proceedings that satisfy section 40 (2) of the Act and that the same was passed without following the principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that the mandatory procedures contemplated under Sections 11 , 12 & 15 of the Act were not followed. They submitted that the habitants cannot be evicted to rehabilitate other persons or their residences be acquired for providing residence to other persons. It was pointed out that the 3rd respondent had sent the proposal as early as 26.06.2015 and the impugned Order came to be passed only on 23.02.2018 and therefore the invoking of urgency clause is unsustainable and the respondent has not understood the meaning of 'urgency' clause and the applicability of Section 42 of the Act.