C SOMASEKAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records to the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to S.Nos.12/2, 13/1 and 16/2 commenced pursuant to the Sec.4(1) notification bearing G.O.Ms.No.857, Housing and Urban Development, dated 26.8.1985 of the first respondent and culminating in the award bearing No.2/88 Vanagaram dated 30.9.1988 and consequential impugned notice to deliver possession bearing No.Nil dated 30.9.1988 of the third respondent and to quash the same and further directing to forbear the respondents from proceeding in any manner with the said acquisition proceedings as regard the lands of the petitioners.

(2.) THE case as put up by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the first petitioner is carrying on the business of printing press through his proprietary concern, viz., M/s.Madras Litho Press at Vanagaram village; that the second petitioner, it carry on the business of printing press, purchased part of the premises in S.Nos.12/2, 13/1 and 16/2 situate in Poonamallee High Road, Vanagaram village; that by G.O.Ms.No.837, Housing, dated 15.6.1976, the first respondent revealed that four categories of lands would be excluded from acquisition, viz.:

(3.) THE petitioners would ascertain stating that under Sec.11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, an Award is mandatorily to be made within two years from the date of last publication under Sec.6, lest, the entire proceeding shall lapse; that in this case, the last publication of Sec.6 declaration being on 1.10.1986, it is incumbent to make the award on or before 1.10.1988 but they received the notice of Award passed by the third respondent only on 27.10.1988, which got posted on 25.10.1988, put purported to have been signed on 30.9.1988 itself; that many anomalies regarding the date of the notice of award are patent on record leading to the irresistible conclusion that the Award was never signed on 30.9.1988 but later the same had been ante-dated to get over the requirements of the Sec.11-A of the Act and to rejuvenate the proceedings which had mandatorily lapsed; that Sec.12(2) makes immediate notice of Award to the interested persons; that in any event the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of Sec.11-A of the Act inasmuch as the Award cannot be taken to have been made before 27.10.1988 i.e., the date of the second petitioner being informed of the same which is beyond the time of two years and in these circumstances, the petitioner would conclude praying for the relief mentioned above.