The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government's invocation of emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act must be based on a grave emergency, and failure to comply with mandatory provisions and serve notice on the real landowners can lead to the quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings.

The petitioners, numbering 29, claim that they are the owners of the plots comprised in S.No.801/2, 801/3, 801/6, 809, 810, 811 and 812 at Thanthoni village, Karur Taluk, Karur District. Originally, Mrs.Kanniammal and 3 others were the owners of these lands. Mrs.Kanniammal laid lay out under the name of "Thiruvallur Nagar", and got approval from the Director of Town Planning. After completing all the formalities, she dedicated the streets to the local Panchayat and then sold away the plots to various persons on various dates between the years 1988 and 1996. The petitioners purchased few such plots from Mrs.Kanniammal and 3 others. According to them, they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots.

2. While so, the District Collector, Karur has issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire these lands along with some more lands for the purpose of forming "Master Plan Complex of Karur. Under Section 4(2) of the Act. The Special Tahsildar, Land acquisition for "Master Plan Complex of Karur" was authorised to exercise the powers conferred by the said Sub Section and under Clause

( c ) of Section 3 of the said Act. As per G.O.Ms.No.452 Revenue (RA 1) Department, dated 03.06.1998, the Collector was directed under Section 17(4) of the Act, to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, in view of the urgency of the case. In the said Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, unfortunately, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned as land owners and instead, the name of Mrs. Kanniammal and 3 others were mentioned. It was published in the Gazette on 04.06.1998. Paper Publication of the said Notification was made on 13.06.1998 and local publication was made on 16.06.1998. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 17.06.1998. On 17.06.1998, publication was said to have been made and on 28.06,.1998, paper publication in two vernacular newspapers was said to have been made. Local publication was made on 02.07.1998 by Tom Tom. A further declaration under Section 7 of the Act was made on 15.02.1999. Award enquiry was held on 15.03.1999. One Mrs. Saradambal, one of the writ petitioners, submitted her objections on 28.03.1999. However, award was made on 05.07.1999. It is claimed by the respondents that possession was taken on 110. 1999. While so, petitioners filed the present writ petition on 111. 1999, challenging the entire acquisition proceedings.

3. In the writ petition, the following are the main grounds raised:

i) The decision of the Government authorising the District Collector to invoke emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act, so as to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is not sustainable, inasmuch as there was no such grave emergency as required under Law, prevailing, impelling the Government to dispense with enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act:

ii) Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was not served on the petitioners though it was very well known to the authorities that the lands had already been sold away by laying plots to various persons including petitioners;

iii) At the time when the sale deeds were executed as required under the Registration law, necessary fee was collected by the Registering Officer for effecting mutation in the revenue records and as a matter of fact, as soon as registrations were made, the Registering Officer had forwarded the applications to the Tahsildar for transfer of patta. But without effecting mutations in the Revenue Records , the respondents, now erroneously claim that they are not bound to make roving enquiry in respect of title and then to issue notice to the persons interested;and

iv) Under Section 17(3) (a) of the Act, unless 80% of the compensation amount is tendered for payment to the land owners, the entire proceedings shall stand vitiated. In the case on hand, though prior to the award, some of the petitioners made representations alon