There must be mutual agreement between land owner and Government.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice:

Since, we have decided W.P.Nos.37373 and 37376 of 2003 today, the above Writ Appeals arising out of the common interlocutory order passed in the said writ petitions are dismissed as infructutous.

2. The above writ petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.164, Transport (I.1) dated 03.12.2003 and to quash the same. By the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2003 passed under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government of Tamil Nadu has withdrawn from the acquisition of land in question.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. In paragraph – 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.37373 of 2003 it is alleged that the petitioners therein own land covered under the Section 4(1) notification dated 01.06.1999 in various town survey numbers as mentioned therein situate in Namakkal town within the limit of Namakkal Municipality. There were houses and buildings put up by many of the petitioners sought to be acquired for the purpose of laying a railway track for Salem-Karur broad gauge railway line project by invoking the urgency clause as provided for under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition (Central Act 1 of 1894). Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) was issued in G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 01.06.1999 in respect of the lands of the petitioners, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 vide G.O.Ms.No.192, Transport (I.1) Department dated 01.07.1999 for a total extent of about 09.42.5 hectares. The petitioners were dispossessed of their lands covered under the above said acquisition proceedings on 05.07.1999 and the same was handed over to the Requisition Body viz., the 2nd respondent – Railways immediately. By virtue of the said acquisition proceedings, many of the petitioners became homeless and found it difficult to have alternative accommodations, and on that score such of those petitioners incurred heavy financial loss because of immediate dispossession on account of acquisition under urgency clause.

5. In paragraph – 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.37373 of 2003 it is alleged that the respondents commenced the work of construction to provide a railway track on the acquired land of the petitioners in August 1999 itself. The level of the acquired land was raised to the height of about 40 ft to 50 ft by doing necessary escalation and filling up with a number of layers of various materials, such as iron ore, coal, etc., The petitioners further alleged that the respondents have altered the acquired land to make it fit for a long railway track, which cannot be used for any other purpose, much less for the original purpose used by the petitioners. Prior to the date of acquisition, the construction work had reached the final stage in regard to the portion of land acquired from the petitioners.

6. The land sought to be acquired was for laying railway track of 1.9 Km length on the Salem-Karur Division. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 01.06.1999 for the acquisition of 09.42.5 hectares of land, and thereafter notification under Section – 6 was issued on 01.07.1999. Subsequently, the possession of the land was taken by the respondents and the houses of the petitioners were demolished. The award was passed on 29.07.2001. Compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was received by the petitioners under protest. They filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act which was allowed by the Sub Judge on 17.04.2003, but the appeal under Section 54 of the Act against that order is pending with the High Court.

7. On 29.08.2003 the High Court passed a stay order subject to deposit of entire amount and the land-owners were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. However, on the application moved by the railways on 19.11.2003 the High Court modified the aforesaid order and directed to pay 2