Non-drawal of proceeding by the State violative of Article 14.

Both the writ petitions are filed against the orders of the Government refusing restore the lands of the petitioners from acquisition proceedings of the Housing Board.

2. Certain lands were acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and bits of lands are the subject matter of these writ petitions, one is in S.No.2/lA and another S.No.2/10 etc. in Alagapuram Village, Salem District.

3. Both the petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings itself and failed. The petitioner in W.P.No.6078 of 1991 challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.3675 of 1981 it was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 19.1.1984 and the said order affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 1985 on 30.9.1985. A special leave met with the same fate and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9.11.1987.

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.1508 of 1991 filed W.P.No.7490 of 1982 and it was dismissed by S.Ramalingam, J. on 29.3.1990 and the said order was affirmed by a Division Bench W.A.No.621 of 1990 on 5.7.1990.

5. Obviously when one of the writ petitioner failed in the Supreme Court, the petitioners made representations to the Government to exclude their lands from acquisition. This not acceded to by the Government and as such the petitioners are before me questioning the orders of the Government refusing to exclude their lands.

6. Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel, mainly contended that certain lands the same classification were excluded by the Government and there is no reason why petitioners should be treated differently. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it Art.14 of the Constitution. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that S.Ramalingam, dismissed a similar writ petition (W.P.No.15093 of 1990) with regard to the same acquisition proceedings, and when a review petition was filed, it was allowed by the learned Judge on 27.2.1991 and as such this Court could follow the order of S.Ramalingam, reviewing the order in W.P.No.15093 of 1990. The main contention raised is that since similar circumstances S.Ramalingam, J. allowed W.P.No.15093 of 1990 on a review very same facts, these impugned orders are also to be set aside, as it offends Art.14 Constitution. When certain lands were excluded from acquisition proceedings, the Senior counsel asks, Why not these lands which are the subject matter of these petitions could not be excluded from acquisition proceedings.

7. Notice of motion was ordered by me in these writ petitions on 7.2.1991 and 19.4.1991 respectively. The learned Government Advocate for Housing appears before me and submissions on instructions, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf State. It is stated on instructions by the learned Government Advocate appearing for State that the petitioners ’ lands are classified as Government dry lands and the lands are essentially required implement the scheme and as such they were not excluded from acquisition. According the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that the lands which excluded are wet lands and that it is not the case here. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State further submitted that the land is acquired for the larger interest the Public and the right of the petitioner cannot look large and if at all, the petitioners entitled to compensation with solatium as provided under the Act. The learned Government Advocate submitted that all proceedings are over and the petitioners are dodging acquisition proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses, which the notification has been made as early as 1978, by approaching this Court repeatedly by filing writ petitions. According to the learned Government Advocate there is no violation Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the arguments of Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel petitioners, and of Ms.Kalaiselvi, Government Advocate appearing for the State. It settled that the power of eminent