The main legal point established in the judgment is that purchasers who buy lands after the initiation of acquisition proceedings cannot fault the acquisition based on their lack of awareness of the proceedings at the time of purchase.

(Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan, dated 14.10.2004 made in W.P.No.16969 of 2004.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.12.2004 made in W.P.No.16969 of 2004, in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed for issuance of mandamus restraining the respondents from acquiring or interfering with the peaceful possession and ownership of the petitioners lands in Mathoor Village in Thiruvellore District.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sundara Rajan, learned counsel for the appellants. Even at the admission stage, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appears for all the three respondents.

3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioners numbering 3 have approached this Court with a request to issue writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from acquiring or interfering with their peaceful possession and ownership of the lands in Mathoor Village in Thiruvellore District. According to them, they purchased the property on 01.06.2001 in Document No.2934/2001. The affidavit further shows that the petitioners'' father in turn purchased the lands under a registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.1996 in Document No.33/97. Further, before purchase, they verified the revenue records and obtained a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer. It is further seen that the petitioners have purchased the property in question only after the acquisition proceedings had reached the final stage.

4. Before the learned Judge, the second respondent, Special Tahsildar(LA) Aromatic Complex MRL, Saidapet, Chennai has filed a counter affidavit highlighting various aspects and the stage of acquisition proceedings. It is seen from the counter affidavit that even on 16.09.1989, the Government accorded administrative sanction for acquisition/transfer of 1655.92 acres of lands in Manali and 5 other villages for setting up an Aromatic Complex and other petro based downstream projects close to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (formerly Madras Refineries Limited). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short "L.A. Act") (Central Act) was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 17.10.1990. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 22.10.1990 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government gazette dated 05.08.1992 as well as in Newspapers on 30.07.1992 and 01.08.1992. The substance of the same was also published in the locality on 20.08.1992. Thereafter, notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the L.A. Act was published in the village on 28.12.1992. The award enquiry was conducted on 11.01.1993 and on subsequent dates. Finally, award was passed on 19.08.1994.

5. The particulars furnished in the counter affidavit further shows that the land in Survey No.168/2A4A measuring 0.15.0 hectares (0.37 acres) and 168/2B measuring 0.32.5 hectares (0.81 acres) were registered in the name of Elumalai Naicker, S/o. Munusamy Naicker. During the enquiry, he participated and requested payment of compensation in his name and also consented to cut and remove the palmyra trees that stood on the lands. The said Elumalai Naicker and 23 others have filed W.P.No.21527 of 1994, questioning the administrative sanction order passed by the Government. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to make representation to the Government.

6. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit reiterating their stand.

7. By the impugned order dated 14.12.2004, the learned Judge after taking note of the fact that the writ petitioners have purchased the property only after initiation of acquisition proceedings and also finding that some of the vendors have participated in the award enquiry, dismissed the said writ petition. Questioning the same,, present appeal