Srinivasan J

In this Writ Petition, the validity of acquisition of 61 cents in R.S.Nos.29 and 30, Velacherry, Madras under Notification dated 15. 1973 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged. The acquisition is for the purpose of formation of a by-pass road connecting Murmalong Bridge and Irumpuliyur Road. The property originally belonged to one Bagyalakshmiamma, who sold it on 20.11.1955 to one Pallat Sankaran Nair. Though the purchase was in the year 1955, the said Sankaran Nair did not get the revenue records mutated in his favour. However, he got copies of the proceedings of acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act and he sent a communication to the Special Deputy Collector on 10. 1975 by which he informed that portions of the property had been sold. He did not however take care to give the particulars as to the sales made by him. He did not even mention the names of the purchasers. Yet another letter was sent by him on 112. 1982, in which, he had categorically stated that he had no objection in acquiring the land in his possession.

a.2 . The declaration under Section 6 was published on 5. 1976. An amendment was also made to the survey numbers on 33. 1982. A notice of award enquiry was sent to the erstwhile owner; but nobody appeared and a fresh date was fixed for the award enquiry, as 112. 1982. That notice was served on the original writ petitioner and he filed the present writ petition on 12. 1982. The prayer in the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed any further with respect to the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to the notification under Section 9

b.(1) of the Act. The only ground on which the original writ petitioner claimed the relief is that he had no notice at the stage of enquiry under Section 5-A or subsequently and that the first notice received by him was the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. The 1st petitioner has claimed that the purchased the property under sale deed dated 22. 1974 from Pallet Sankaran Nair. Admittedly that sale was about nine months after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

c.3 . Subsequently, the original writ petitioner sold the property to his nephew by name N.R. Mahesh under a sale deed dated 18. 1984. The new purchaser filed W.M.P. No.13564 of 1990 for impleading himself as a party to the writ petition and W.M.P. No.13565 of 1990 for raising additional grounds. In the additional grounds, it is urged that the award passed in the proceedings is vitiated in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by virtue of the provisions of section 11(A) of the Act. It must also be mentioned here that when the writ petition was filed in 1982, an interim order of injunction was passed restraining the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the acquisition pursuant to the notification. By order dated 2. 1987, the interim injunction was made absolute, but was confined to the dispossession of the writ petitioner. It was also made clear that there will be no stay in other respects. But even before that order was passed, an award had been passed on 29. 1986, i.e., within a period of two years from the date on which Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force.

a.4 . The contentions in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, are (1) that the entire proceedings is vitiated for want of notice to him, as he is a purchaser of the property and a person interested in the proceedings. He placed reliance on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Seethalkshmi Ammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1993 Mad.1). The Full Bench construed the words ‘person aggrieved’ and observed that the meaning may vary according to the context of the statute and that even a stranger could be found to have locus standi although he may not have any personal interest of his own, provided he is not a busybody or meddlesome interloper and althoug