Acquisition proceeding not vitiated due to time gap in publication of the notification.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

These writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 19. 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.6001 of 1990, 14396,15994 and 15995 of 1988. W.A.Nos.28 to 31 of 1992 are by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sub Collector, Coimbatore against the common order dated 19. 1991 by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.6001 of 1990, 14396, 15994, 15995 of 1988. Whereas W. A.Nos.37 to 40 of 1992 are also preferred against the very same order by V.L.B. Trust, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore District for whose benefit the acquisition in question is made. All these writ petitions are decided by a common order. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the State Government and V.L.B. Trust have come up in these writ appeals.

2. In the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the time gap between the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette under Sec.4(l) of the Act on 211. 1984 and publication of the substance of the said notification in the locality on 211. 1985 have vitiated the acquisition proceedings?

(ii) Whether the time gap between the two publications has been explained by the two publications has been explained by the acquiring authority? (iii) Whether the time gap between the two publications has caused any prejudice to the petitioners? (iv) Whether the petitioners are guilty of laches? (v) Whether the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with?

3. Facts necessary for the purpose of considering the contentions urged under the aforesaid points, on both sides are as follows: The State Government published in the Official Gazette dated 211. 1984 the notification dated 20.11.1984 under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, in G.O.Ms.No.1382, Education Department proposing to acquire an extent of 103.72 acres comprised in various survey numbers situated in Kuniamuthur village, Coimbatore District, for the purpose of construction of a polytechnic, a girls’ high school, hostel buildings, quarters, play-groundretc.The said notification was published in the ‘Daily Thanthi’ dated 111. 1985 and ‘The Hindu’ dated 20.11.1985. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 211. 1985. Persons interested in the lands filed objections. Enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was held on 24. 1986 and 29. 1986. A report was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government under Sec.5-A of the Act and the same was accepted by the State Government, and a declaration under Sec.6(i) of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.1857, Education Department, dated 111. 1986 was published in the Gazette on 211. 1986 and in the newspaper ‘Daily Thanthi’ on 211. 1986 and ‘Indian Express’ on 211. 1986 a substance of the same was also published in the locality on 211. 1986.

4. It is also to be noticed that prior to the filing of these writ petitions, one Vijayaraghavan, one of the persons interested in some of the lands acquired under the notifications in question, filed W.P.No.9150 of 1987 challenging both the notification issued under Secs.4(l) and 6(1) of the Act. It was dismissed on 19. 1987. In addition to this, there was another W.P.No.5377 of 1987, filed by one Francis questioning the declaration made under Sec.6(l) of the Act. It was also dismissed on 29. 1987. Vijayaraghavan went up in W.A.No.74 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 212. 1990 and the said judgment is reported in Vijayaraghavan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1993 Writ L.R. 294. The present writ petitions were filed after the aforesaid two writ petitions were dismissed. It is necessary to state the dates on which each of these writ petitions was filed. W.P.No. 14396 of 1988 was filed on 211. 1988, W.P.Nos. 15994 and 15995 of 1988 were filed on 212. 1988 and W.P.No.6001 of 1990 was filed on 5. 1990. We have already pointed out th