The power of eminent domain, the authority of the Government to acquire property for public purposes, and the right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings dated 111. 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the declaration dated 211. 1997 issued by the second respondent, whereby the property of the petitioners and other land owners were acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

2. The factul matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:- Petitioners version

The petitioners were the owners of the land in Survey Nos.150/3I, 150/3C and 152/2 in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk and after purchase of the property, the petitioners along with other land owners jointly formed a lay out in the year 1995 for the purpose of selling the lands in small plots as house sites. The property was purchased by the individual land owners by way of separate documents. Subsequently they got the approval of the lay out from the Director of Town and Country Planning as per the proceedings of the year 1995. The petitioners have also executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the local panchayat for providing road, park, etc. The petitioners executed several sale deeds in the year 1995 and 1996 to individual purchasers and a total number of 56 plots have been sold.

.3. While so, the first respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 111. 1996 proposing to acquire an extent of 186. 0 hectares in Vilankurichi Village. The land belonging to the petitioners and other neighbouring owners were also included in the said notification. However the name of the petitioners or their assignee were not mentioned in the said notification and Section 4(1) notification has been issued in the name of the erstwhile owners. Immediately on receipt of the information about the proposed acquisition, the petitioners made their objections before the authorities and they have also attended 5A enquiry conducted by the second respondent. The objections filed by the petitioners were referred to the requisitioning body namely, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and on consideration of the matter, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board observed that the property of the petitioners could be exempted from acquisition, as the same was not necessary for the scheme. The said report of the requisitioning body was looked into by the second respondent and the enquiry report was sent to the Government recommending for the withdrawal of the lands belonging to the petitioners and others from the acquisition proceedings. However the first respondent overruled those recommendations and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners and others were acquired. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition.

.Case of respondents

.4. The contention of the petitioners were disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent wherein it was stated that the objections filed by the interested persons were forwarded to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and ultimately the objections were rejected and further proceedings were taken. The land acquisition proceedings were commenced in the year 1988 itself and the petitioners got the approval of lay out only in the year 1995 without disclosing the factum of the ongoing land acquisition proceedings. There was no mutation in the revenue records and the revenue register was in the name of the erstwhile land owners and as such there was no question of including the name of the petitioners and other land owners in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even though the Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board recommended for exclusion of the property of the petitioners from the purview of land acquisition, the said suggestion was not acceptable to the Government and as such the Government overruled the recommendation made by the requisitioning body. The respondents also justified th