These three writ petitions can be considered, and disposed of together since they relate to the same acquisition and declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the learned counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common.

.2. The above writ petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Act and in G.O.Ms.No.2171, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 20.11.1989 in so far as the lands of the respective writ petitioners are concerned. The petitioners in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 claimed to be the sons of late Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o.Muthusamy Moopanar, the original owner of Survey No.138/12B. The petitioner in W.P.No.15225 of 1990 claims to be the owner of the property in Survey No.l38/13B. W.P.No.15226 of 1990 has been filed by a person claiming to be the owner of Survey No.138/10 and he claims title under a Will said to have been executed on 7. 1963 by his aunt by name Poonjolai Ammal, stated to be the original owner of the said item of land.

3. Notice of motion has been ordered by this Court in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 on 9. 1990 and the other two writ petitions on 19. 1990 and at that time, interim st