Government is obliged to pay compensation.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A.No. 4/5832/91, dated 7. 91 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to pass an award in respect of the petitioners’ lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following: The petitioners state that they are the owners of the various bits of land, particulars of which are given in para 2 of the writ petition. The said properties were purchased by the first petitioner under different sale deeds. Petitioner No.2 is his wife and the petitioners 3 to 6 are his sons. There was a partition on 3. 1989 and the properties were allotted to different petitioners in the said partition. The petitioners were granted pattas by the Headquarters Additional Deputy Tahsildar, Vridhachalam on the basis of the said partition deed and the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties paying the kist. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have developed the land, by planting trees and raising crops; that there were five houses and three wells. They have planted teak-wood trees, eucalyptus, casua-rina trees and bamboos. According to the petitioners, the value of the trees would be several lakhs and the value of the houses and wells would be about two lakhs.

2. It is further submitted that at the instance and for the purpose of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (N.L.C.) the Government issued a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short the Act) which was published in Tamil Daily (Dinakaran’ on 11. 1990 and in one another paper. Exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 17 of the Act, enquiry contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The draft declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was approved by the Government - vide G.O.652, Industries M.I.A. (2) Department, dated 26. 1990. Sec.6 Declaration was published in the Tamil Daily ‘Dinakaran’ on 7. 1990. The petitioners were waiting that they would hear something in regard to the land acquisition proceedings and were keeping quiet. During December 1991, they came to know that certain orders had been passed with respect to their land. Petitioner came to know that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 7. 1991 for taking over the lands of the petitioners. The said lands were originally assigned to other persons subject to various conditions, one of the condition being that in case the lands were required by N.L.C, the assignees should surrender the lands without claiming any compensation. Invoking this condition, the second respondent has passed the impugned order cancelling the assignments made earlier. The impugned order states that notices were issued to persons in possession of the land. But the petitioners assert that they were not given any notice as alleged. They have further stated that no notice was served on the petitioners even by affixture. There was no occasion for them to refuse such notice as well. The first petitioner having purchased the lands under various registered sale deeds applied for mutation of the properties in his name. The mutation was accordingly effected. Even thereafter, he effected partition of the same lands between his wife and other petitioners - that is his sons. It is also stated that the first petitioner purchased the said land after a period of 10 years from the date of assignment and consequently there was no violation of condition No. 8 of the order of assignment. Clause 22 of the assignment deed states that whenever the land is required by N.L.C., it should be given to the Government without compensation. According to the petitioners, they cannot oppose the acquisition of these land for N.L.C. but they would be entitled to compensation. Under these circumsta