This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the Issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the notification of the 1st respondent, State of Madras represented by the Secretary to Government Home Department, in G.O.Rt. No. 4709, Home, dated 5th December, 1963 under section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the issue, on 1st July, 1959 of a notification under section 4 (1) of the Act that several items of land, including Survey No. 92/1 measuring 2.10 acres of the petitioner, were required for a public purpose, namely, for providing house-sites to the Harijans of Alagapuram village, Salem District. The details of the, petitioner’s main grievance in regard to the abovesaid land acquisition proceedings, as stated by the learned Counsel before me, Sri V. Vedantachariar, at the time of the hearing of the petition are as under.

Though the section 4 (1) notification was issued on 1st July, 1959 the subsequent proceedings dragged on through an unconscionably long time, with the result that the section 6(1) declaration was published in the Fort St. George Gazette only on 1st January, 1964 after a period of nearly four years. Under the statute the petitioner for the purpose of claiming compensation is restricted to the market value of the land as on the date of the section 4 (1) notification. According to the petitioner, the land is in the centre of the colonies of Swarnapuri and Fair lands, abutting the Yercaud to Sooramangalam road, and it was also represented before me at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition, that the locality is about one mile from Salem Town. It is urged that the period 1959 to 1964 was a period of rapidly rising land values especially of lands in the out-skirts of towns and which are valuable as house sites. As a result of the long delay, the compensation which the petitioner would be awarded after 1964 on dispossession would have no substantial relation to the value of the land prevailing at or about the period of his dispossession, but would be related to a long anterior period, 1959. It was urged that though the statute does not prescribe any time-limit for completing the acquisition proceedings (unlike for example section 48-A) of the Land Acquisition Act which prescribes a time-limit of two years for passing the award in the case of acquisition proceedings initiated by the City Improvement Board in the City of Madras), it is permissible to the Court in particular cases, where the dilatory nature of the proceedings has acted so oppressively on the subject, as to make the compensation paid to him not really compensation at all to grant the appropriate relief by quashing the proceedings and directing the initiation of fresh proceedings under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. For this purpose, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad1. I shall refer to the decision a little later, with some detail while dealing with this part of the argument.

Along with the declaration under section 6 (1) the Respondent Government also added a declaration, empowering the acquiring department to take possession of the land under section 17 (2) of the Act, immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9 (1) of the Act. It is urged that such a procedure for taking possession is not authorised under the statute. The ordinary rule is that possession shall be taken after the passing of the award and the payment or deposit of the compensation amount as the case may be. The statute permits a deviation from the procedure under section 17 (2) in a case where the Collector is of the opinion that immediate possession is necessary in certain specified cases. In such an event he could take possession immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in section 17 (1) of the Act and with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. But