The requisitioning body is an interested party and has the right to challenge orders setting aside land acquisition proceedings. Possession and delay in challenging acquisition proceedings can impact the validity of claims.

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, on the request of the petitioners, issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.799 Housing and Urban Development, dated 18. 1982 to acquire lands in an extent of 183.35 acres in Telngupalayam village for the purpose of construction of houses under Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme. Aggrieved, W.P.Nos.4079 of 1989 and 14235 of 1988 were filed by the respondents 1 to 15 and 1 to 9 respectively in these review applications.

Though initially interim stay was granted, the same was vacated by a learned single Judge on 20.2.1994. Aggrieved, the respondents 1 to 15 and 1 to 9 in these review applications have filed W.A.Nos.258 and 1069 of 1994 and the First Bench of this Court, while taking-up the said writ appeals along with the writ petitions, has allowed the writ petitions. The said decision of the First Bench of this Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court by the petitioners herein in SLP (Civil) Nos.13458 to 13462 of 1998 and since the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they wanted to move the High Court for review of the judgment under appeal, the said SLPs. were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 38. 1998, consequent to which these Review Applications are filed by the petitioners.

2. Admittedly, the review petitioner is the requisitioning body. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the review applications filed by the Requisitioning Body are not maintainable. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents have relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD vs. CHANDULAL SHAMALDAS PATEL AND OTHERS [1971 (3) SCC 821]. In the above said judgment, the lands were notified for acquisition for the use of the Municipal Corporation and when the said notification was quashed by the Court, the Municipal Corporation, which was impleaded as fourth respondent before the High Court, has appealed to the Supreme Court and the Honourable Apex Court has held that since the Municipalality is a non-aggrieved party, it is not entitled to file the appeal.

.3. The learned counsel for the respondents have also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs. SEMBANNA GOUNDER AND OTHERS [2006 (4) CTC 803]. In this judgment, it has been held:

."Appropriate Government alone can proceed to initiate proceedings for acquiring lands exercising their power of Eminent Domain. Housing Board being requisition body has no interest, whatsoever, at any stage of proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, in the land intended to be acquired till such time possession of acquired land is handed over to Housing Board. It is only Government and Government alone can challenge order quashing declaration under Section 6. Writ Appeal preferred by Housing Board is held to be not maintainable."

.4. But, in HIMALAY TILES AND MARBLE (P) LTD. vs. F.V.COUTINHO [AIR 1980 SC 1118], the Honourable Apex Court has held that the beneficiary viz. the requisitioning body would come within the definition of "person interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also been held that the expression "Person interested" is very comprehensive and it does not profess to give an exhaustive definition and a liberal interpretation has to be given to the said expression. In fact, while upholding the right of requisitioning body to file an appeal, in para No.13 of the said judment, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:

."Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of person interested must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with