The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of land acquisition for public purposes and the importance of providing fair compensation to affected landowners.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The 1st petitioner submits that he and his wife namely the 2nd respondent herein are the owners of agricultural lands comprised in New Survey Nos.39/1, 48/10, 39/3, 48/1E, 40/2, 40/3 and 48/1c situated at Nannai East Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. The 2nd respondent herein namely the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, who is attached to the Adi-Dravida Welfare Department, Perambalur District issued a notification under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act to acquire the said land for putting up a pathway to a burial ground on 29.09.2004. But no notice was served on the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a writ petition Nos.3104 and 3105 of 2005, on the file of this Court. This Court after verification of records allowed the writ petitions by its common order dated 18.11.2009. However, this Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh enquiry notice to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the above said copy of the common order and complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from thereon. The petitioners state that the said order has become final and no appeal being filed against the said common orders.

2. The petitioners additionally added that the order copy was made ready on 26.11.2005 and delivered the same on 27.11.2009 and therefore the respondents should have issued notice of hearing to the petitioners on or before 11.12.2009 and complete the enquiry on or before 25.12.2009, but, the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court dated 18.11.2009. The petitioners state that the common order passed by this Court is binding on the respondents. In contrary to the orders passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent herein issued a notice only on 12.03.2009 after a delay of nearly four months and directed the petitioners to attend an enquiry to be held on 15.03.2010. In obedience of this Court's order, the petitioners have attended the enquiry but on that day, no enquiry was conducted by the respondents, since the 1st respondent had other work on that day with the 2nd respondent. The petitioners have waited and finally directed to leave the office with an assurance that fresh date of enquiry will be communicated to them. But, no such notice was issued to the petitioners thereafter. In view of the above fact, the petitioners were constrained to issue a legal notice dated 06.04.2010 narrating the entire facts and also requested the authorities not to proceed with the acquisition proceedings further. Apart from the above facts the petitioner's son namely Balusamy had also through his letter dated 20.07.2011, requested the 2nd respondent herein not to proceed with the acquisition proceedings since the time given by this Court had already expired.

3. The petitioners further added that they have also issued another legal notice dated 25.07.2011, to the 1st respondent narrating the entire facts, but there was no response or action on the part of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner herein, on the instruction of the Village Administrative Office, Nannai Village appeared before him on 03.09.2011 and evidencing the same, they have also filed a representation before him, but nothing had happened on that day. However, the officials are constantly interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property and also caused threat to them to have a personal negotiation and also making an attempt to create some law and order problem in the village, whenever a death occurred in the village. Thus, the petitioners are kept under constant peril. The only intention of the authority is to take possession of the land forcibly with the assistance of some vested interest. The petitioners further stated that the original notification under Section 4(2) of the Act was no longer holding good because of the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 have n