Failure to follow procedure vitiates acquisition proceedings.

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 07.03.2002 made in W.P.No.20227 of 1994.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The Chairman and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai 600 035, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.03.2002 passed in W.P.No.20227 of 1994, filed the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.

3. Questioning the land acquisition proceedings, the first respondent herein/writ petitioner, filed W.P.No.20227 of 1994 projecting various points. The learned single Judge, after finding that the award came to be passed after expiry of two years from the date of declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short "the Act"), which is not permissible and that the impugned proceedings were 6th one, after unsuccessful five occasions in acquiring the land, quashed the entire land acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition. Questioning the same, as said earlier, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/requisitioning body alone has filed this appeal and the Government have not preferred any appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Kasikumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel for the contesting first respondent.

5. At the foremost, it is admitted that the reasoning of the learned Judge that the award came to be passed after expiry of two years from the date of declaration is not acceptable. It is also not in dispute that the learned Judge has not furnished the date of last mode of service, viz., service in the locality by publication under Section 6 of the Act and the date on which the award was passed. Further, it is also not in dispute that immediately after the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, filed W.P.No.20227 of 1994 and obtained an order of interim stay of all further proceedings on 08.01.1994. The interim order was in force and ultimately, on 7.03.2002, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge. In such circumstances neither the Tahsildar, nor the Government can be expected to pass an award during the pendency of the above writ petition. We are of the view that the said conclusion of the learned Judge cannot be sustained.

6. The other reasoning recorded by the learned Judge for quashing the acquisition proceedings is that there were successive acquisition proceedings starting from 1961 and the Department issued fresh notifications one after another. However, the fact remains that all the notifications were in accordance with law, as provided under the Land Acquisition Act and Rules made thereunder.

7. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner by placing reliance on the details commencing from 11.10.1961, viz., the date of first 4(1) notification and ending with the order of the learned Judge dated 07.03.2002, contended that in view of various flaws and procedural violations, the impugned acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. At the foremost, he submitted that successive notifications without adherence to the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules are bad. In order to appreciate the said contention, we culled out various dates and events from the particulars furnished by the writ petitioner. We reproduce the same hereunder:

(i) According to the writ petitioner, on 09.09.1959, an extent of 3.36 acres of lands in Survey No.293/1 in Kodungaiyur Village Fort/Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras District were purchased by her for development as house sites. The said lands were sought to be acquired by the Government at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Section 4(1) notification dated 25.09.1961 was published in the gazette on 11.10.1961, enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6(1) was gazetted on 21.11.1962, for the formation of Vyasarpadi Nei