The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of prior approval and the time limit for passing the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14. 2002 made in W.P.No.21093 of 1994, in and by which the learned Judge after finding that the award had been passed as early as on 211. 1994 and the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged after passing of the award, dismissed the writ petition, the writ petitioner preferred the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Kasikumar, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us through the entire acquisition proceedings has raised the following contentions:

Inasmuch as the very same acquisition notification was quashed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20850 and 20851 of 1994 by order dated 110. 2001 and the writ appeal filed by the Government/Housing Board was also dismissed since the delay had not been condoned, the same order is applicable to the petitioner/appellant and the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

The local dailies, "Athirshtam" and Kumari Murasu" in which the publication was made were not having wide circulation in the locality where the land is situate and on this ground also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be interfered with.

Inasmuch as the award was passed on the last date of the prescribed period of limitation, viz., 211. 1994 and there was no prior approval by the authority concerned, the award passed on 211. 1994 is not a valid award and hence, the entire acquisition proceedings commencing from notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") are liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, particularly, the Housing Board, contended that the earlier decision referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. He further contended that inasmuch as the prayer relates to the quashing of notification under section 4(1) of the Act as well as declaration under section 6 of the Act and the writ petition has been filed well after passing of the award, in the absence of any amendment to the prayer, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the settled legal position by this Court and the Apex Court.

6. We have perused the entire records and considered the rival contentions.

7. The original writ petitioner, Kolammal, D/o. Velammal was the owner of the land to an extent of 80.745 cents in Old Survey No.1932 and Re-survey No.N2/195 in Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board wanted to acquire lands at Nagercoil for the public purpose of development of Nagercoil Environment Scheme. Though, according to the Department, the entire acquisition proceedings were completed fulfilling all the requirements, it is the grievance of the petitioner-Kolammal that there were several infirmities, which necessitated her to approach this Court by filing writ petition. We have already referred to the main contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Among the contentions, first let us consider the last contention, viz., whether the award has been passed in terms of First Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. It is true that the objections relating to the defects in the award dated 211. 1994 have not been specifically raised in the writ petition. However, realising that the award was passed on the last date of prescribed period of limitation without prior approval of the competent authority, the petitioner filed a petition in W.A.M.P.No.63 of 2007 raising additional grounds, and we ordered the said petition on 13. 2007. In para-6 of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that,

“Moreo