1. Acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, issued in G.O.Ms.No.146, Housing and Urban Development and G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development (I.A.IV(2), dated 29.03.2000, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in Part II Section 2 supplement on 10.05.2000 and section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.272, Housing and Urban Development (LA 4-2) Department, dated 16.05.2001, published in Part II - Section 2 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary on 16.05.2001, in respect of the properties in Survey No.69/5C, an extent of 0.90.0 Hectares and in Survey No.26/4, an extent of 0.58.0 Hectares, have been challenged W.P.No.13370 of2002, to quash the abovesaid order. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed on 13.12.2012.

2. Being aggrieved by the same, Mr.K.Rakkianna Gounder, Mr.R.Rajaram and Mr.R.Murugesan, have filed W.A.No.788 of 2013. By an order dated 29.09.2013, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal. Thus, the declarations, have reached a finality.

3. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Award in ROC.No.929/98 in Award No.No.1/2003-2004, dated 30.04.2003, passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent No.2.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that earlier, the then Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.P.Gunasekar passed an Award, dated 30.04.2003, in Award No.1/2003-2004, in Proceeding No.ROC.929/98, for a total compensation of Rs.42Lakhs. Before passing the Award, Notice under Sections 9(3) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act, were served on the petitioners, fixing the award enquiry on 28.04.2003. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and submitted a statement before the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, respondent No.2 on 28.04.2003. Thereafter, an Award No.1/2003-2004 has been passed on 30.04.2003. According to Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the first award.

5. He further submitted that after passing the abovesaid award, dated 30.04.2003, Mr.P.Gunasekar, the Land Acquisition Officer, was changed and the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.Jayagandhi, passed another award,for the same lands, on 13.05.2003, which according to him, is the 2nd award. The latter Award is impugned in this Writ Petition.

6. Inviting the attention of this Court toSection 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia and Another v. Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 83. Mr.M.Elango, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, is quasi-judicial in nature. He further submitted that when an enquiry was conducted by the then, Land Acquisition Officer namely, Mr.P.Gunasekar, the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer Mr.G.Jayagandhi, has no jurisdiction or authority to determine the quantum of compensation to the land owners and pass any award, on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

7. Inviting the attention of this Court to the Award dated 13.05.2003, enclosed in the typed set of papers, he submitted that Mr.G.Jayagandhi, subsequent Land Acquisition Officer in the above award, has stated that "the undersigned after full enquiry into the case and on due consideration or various circumstances connected with the acquisition, as have before set forth made the following award under his hand". He has further stated that "the notices were served on all the interested persons, as per rules and that an award enquiry was conducted, by the subsequent Land Acquisition Officer, namely Mr.G.Jayagandhi, in the schedule place and time." Learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the abovesaid averments in the Award, dated 13.05.2003 and further contended that no enquiry was conducted by the successor, Mr.G.Jayagandhi, Land