The mandatory duty under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, requiring the award to be made within two years from the date of declaration, and the necessity for authorized personnel to conduct the acquisition proceedings.

By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.No.LA.63/88 dated 23.11.2009 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the petitioners lands in SF.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C, 152/3, 150/3E and 150/3F situated in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District.

3.1. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 152/1C and 152/3 situated in Vilankurichi village, Coimbatore Taluk and District, is owned and possessed by one Mr.Velappa Gounder and the petitioners 1 to 13 are the legal heirs of the said Velappa Gounder. The property comprise in S.F.Nos.150/3E and 150/3F in the said village is owned and possessed by the petitioners 14 to 17.

3.2. The first respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) in G.O.No.496, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.11.1996 in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners 1 to 13 and 14 to 17 respectively. Section 6 declaration came to be issued by the first respondent in G.O.No.439, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 22.12.1997. In respect of the lands in S.F.Nos.150/3A, 150/3D, 150/3H, 150/3H, 152/1C and 152/3 at the time of 4(1) notification, the original owner, viz., Velappa Gounder was not alive, but the notification was issued in the name of the said deceased Valappa Gounder. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the name of the legal heirs of the said Velappa Gounder, who are the petitioners 1 to 13 herein. In respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3F, the 4(1) notification was issued in the name of the Velappa Gounder and the declaration under Section 6 came to be issued in the name of the petitioners 14 to 16, who are the persons purchased the property from the legal heirs of the original owner Velappa Gounder. In respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.150/3E, 4(1) notification came to be issued in the name of Kandasamy who is the father of the 17th petitioner and Section 6 declaration came to be issued in the name of the 17th petitioner.

3.3. The petitioners 1 to 13 challenged the above said land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.1698 of 1998 and the petitioners 14 to 17 in W.P.No.1697 of 1998. This Court passed a common interim order dated 06.02.1998 in W.M.P.No.2429 and 2431 of 1998 in W.P.Nos.1698 and 1697 of 1998 and the writ petitions ultimately dismissed by this Court by order dated 04.01.2008.

3.4. After the dismissal of the said writ petitions, the award ought to have been passed by the respondents on or before 22.11.2009, but the third respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act for conducting enquiry for passing award and as such, the said notice was issued after the stipulated period of two years under Section 11 of the Act.

3.5. The first respondent authorized only the fourth respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 3 (c) of the Act, but the notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued against the petitioners by the third respondent. Being aggrieved against the said notice, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer.

4. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, made two fold contentions, viz., (i) the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 issued by the third respondent herein is liable to be set aside on the ground that the first respondent authorized only the fourth respondent to initiate the land acquisition proceedings under Section 3(c) of the Act, but the impugned notice dated 23.11.2009 was issued against the petitioners by the third respondent ; and (ii) the earlier writ petitions filed by the