The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval before the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the status of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as a local authority.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who lost their challenge before the learned single Judge seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2.

2. Facts in Brief:

2.1. In pursuant to the Board's Memo No.LA II-4/63268/85 dated 23.09.1985, the Superintending Engineer of the third respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted a proposal for acquisition of the lands for a Housing Scheme as per the letter dated 06.02.1996. The proceedings originally initiated by respondents 1 and 2 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were held to be bad by this Court. Taking note of the letter of the third respondent, dated 01.08.1998, and the letter of the District Revenue Officer, Salem, dated 31.05.1999 as well as the letter dated 24.08.1999 from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Chennai, administrative sanction was granted for the Neighbourhood Scheme by the first respondent. The records would reveal that the decision was taken with the final approval by the Honourable Minister on 18.03.2000. Thereafter, a Government Order, dated 29.03.2000, was passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.146, Housing and Urban Development (LA.VI(2)) Department, and the said Government order is reproduced here under:

"Government of Tamil Nadu

ABSTRACT

Land Acquisition-Salem District-Omalur Taluk-Kottagoundampatty Village-Acquisition Land in S.No.25/5 etc., measuring 11.49.5 hectares for Salem Neighbourhood Scheme by Tamil Nadu Housing Board -Administrative sanction of the scheme -orders-issued.

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (LA VI (2) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.146 Dated 29.3.2000

From the Tamilnadu Housing Board, letter No.LAII(4)/9120/96, dated 1.8.1998

From the District Revenue Officer, Salem, Letter No.107320/84 (B3), dated 31.5.99 addressed to the Special commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai.

From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, letter No.H/24655/99, dated 24.08.1999.

ORDER

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in his letter first read above, has sent the proposal requesting for the acquisition of lands measuring 11.49.5 hectares in S.No.25/5 etc., at the estimate cost of Rs.36,00,544/- in Kottagoundampatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, for Housing Scheme under Salem Neighbourhood Scheme. The actual compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894), will be awarded at in the manner prescribed under the above said Act.

The Government have examined the proposal of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and accord administrative sanction of the scheme for the acquisition of 11.49.5 hectares in 25/5 etc., of Kottagoundampatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, as detailed in annexure to this order for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Housing purpose under Salem Neighbourhood Scheme. The entire expenditure for acquisition of the above lands including enhanced compensation, any other expenditure connected either directly or indirectly with the land acquisition will be met by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

AJAY BHATTACHARYA

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"

2.2. By the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.03.2000, the Government, viz., the first respondent, issued the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners made their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The objections were overruled and a Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made in the Government Gazette on 16.05.2001 by the Housing and Urban Development Department. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellants filed W.P.No.10506 of 2001. The learned single Judge, by order dated 13.12.2012, dismissed the writ petition by holding that it is not necessary to get a prior approval before issuance of 4(1) Notification and that the decisions relied upon