Court should not have retracted from its acceptance.

The petitioner is a religious and Charitable Institution. One of the properties of the petitioner trust is at Door No. 171, Poonamallee — High Road of an extent of 16 grounds with three buildings. Out of the three buildings, one building had been let out to R.M.S. Division, the third respondent herein in the year 1965. The lease period is for 10 years. After the expiry of the lease term, the Department though agreed to execute further lease but did not do so. Since the lease was not extended, the petitioner filed O.S 1889/76 on the file of City Civil Court, for eviction against the third respondent. The suit was decreed on 17.7.78 granting six months time for the third respondent to vacate and handover possession. After the decree, the third respondent negotiated for further lease at the monthly rent of Rs. 4,090/-. While the matter was pending correspondence, the Postal Department moved the second respondent herein for requisitioning the property. In September 1980 notice under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 was issued and thereafter action was initiated to acquire the entire 161/2 grounds with the buildings thereon. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 5.10.83, followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 27.9.86. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings in WP No. 1497/87 which was dismissed. The petitioner preferred writ appeal No. W.A. 317/88. When the said writ appeal was listed for final hearing, there was some negotiation between the third respondent and the petitioner and consequently the writ appeal was disposed of with a direction, directing the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the first respondent containing the offer of the alternative site and directing the first respondent to consider the same. Further this court gave an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the first respondent if the said decision should go against the petitioner and further the Division Bench vacated the findings of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. As following up action, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 9.10.91 offering an alternative sight of 41/2 grounds which was inspected by the concerned authorities in May, 1992. Ultimately the proposal was placed before the Chief Postmaster General, Hyderabad who in turn addressed the Government. The Government, by their letter dated 25.4.94 had accepted the request of the Chief Postmaster General and directed him to go ahead with the acquisition of the alternative site of 41/2 grounds offered by the petitioner. The Government also suggested to explore the possibility of acquiring the alternative site by private negotiation. Hence the petitioner quoted the prevailing market value may be paid for the lands. But, however, no action was taken for nearly four years and all of a sudden the Government issued the proceedings stating that the Government issued the requisitioning body was not agreeable to the value of the land suggested by the petitioner and the Government was constrained to drop the proposal with regard to the alternative site and directed acquisition of the entire 16.5 grounds. Thereafter the petitioner once again made an offer to give the alternative site at the market rate prevailing at the time of the original acquisition. Without considering the same, the acquisition of the entire 16.5 acres is commenced. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. On behalf of the first and second respondents a counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Transport Department in which it is stated that the Superintendent. R.M.S. Tirupathy Division applied for the acquisition of 16 grounds 2, Oil sq.ft. The necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was approved by the Transport Department and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 5.10.83. Thereafter the enquiry under