1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of certiorarified-mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notification dated 8.2.2000 issued by the first respondent in the official gazettee of Cuddalore District pertaining to land in Survey No. 69/8 Ac.2.16 in Silambimangalams Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and consequently forbearing the respondents from interfering with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to one Rahila Bivi of Mylapore, Chennai. She leased out the same to the petitioner and the petitioner was raising paddy and for which separate lease deed dated 10.06.1991 was entered into between the petitioner and the said Rahila Bivi in respect of the petition mentioned properties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the lease agreement, the petitioner had taken over possession of the properties and raising crops and on the date of filing of the writ petition, casurina crop was raised in the lands and that was one year old and further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 initiated land acquisition proceedings, by notification dated 8.2.2000, made in the Cuddalore District Gazette, without issuing notice to the petitioner under 31/78 of Tamil Nadu Act, 1978. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, subsequent to the notification and the proceeding, the land was acquired, though as per Government policy, agricultural land could not be acquired for providing house sites and there are poromboke lands available in the village. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that a suit in O.S. No. 8 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner herein before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai against the respondents, seeking bare injunction, based on the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the said Rahila Bivi. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16.4.2004 and subsequently, the same was set aside. However, an ex parte decree was passed on 10.3.2005 and permanent injunction was granted in the suit.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition, since the petitioner was neither the owner nor a cultivating tenant of the land. It was further contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that there is no supporting document available on the side of the petitioner to show that he was cultivating tenant. So far as the suit in O.S. No.8 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai is concerned, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the suit is nothing to do with the land acquisition proceedings and the alleged ex parte decree is non est in the eye of law, as the prayer sought for is only for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein not to dispossess the land except under due process of law.

5. A copy of the plaint relating to the suit in O.S. No.8 of 2000 was also filed in the typed set of papers. The relief sought for in the suit is only permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants therein, their men or subordinates or the agent from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties except under due process of law. According to the Additional Government Pleader, the land acquisition proceedings is taken only in accordance with law, which cannot be construed as an illegal act or an act against law and further submitted that the suit filed against the land acquisition proceeding is not legally sustainable, in view of the legal bar under the Land Acquisition Act.

6. Mr. R. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the fol