T PARAMARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents from proceeding further under Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands covered under Section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.154 Industries (MIH-II) dated 26.4.1993 of the Government of Tamil Nadu under which the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.222/8 in Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul Anna District has been declared to have been acquired on various grounds.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) REGARDING the second contention, there is no dispute that the declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 12.5.1993, in the dailies on 23.5.1993 and in the locality on 16.6.1993. In otherwords, the date of declaration was 16.6.1993. As per Section 11-A of the Act, the collector has to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act. I have already stated that the date of declaration was on 16.6.1993. If that is so, the award in our case ought to have been passed on or before 15.6.1995. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in State of UP and others v. Rajiv Gupta and another, 1994 (5) S.C.C. 686, similar question was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in that decision. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in that case on 22.12.1990. Their Lordships have held that by operation of Section 11-A, the award should be made within two years from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act i.e. on or before 21.12.1992. If that is so, in our case as observed earlier, the award ought to have been passed on or before 15.6.1995. Admittedly, in our case the award has been passed only on 16.6.1995, which is beyond the prescribed limit as stated above. Accordingly, I sustain the second contention also. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.