The court emphasized the importance of balancing public interest and private interest in land acquisition proceedings, and highlighted the impact of litigation on the delay in implementation of public purpose.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 23.09.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 9059, 7171 and 6900 of 2001.)

Common Judgment

N. Mala, J.

1. The Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in a group of writ petitions. The issues raised in the writ appeals are common and therefore taken together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The undisputed facts are that the lands to an extent of 11.36.5 hectares in various survey numbers in eight villages including the appellants lands to an extent of 0.17.14 hectares in S.Nos. 442, 444, 445, 460 and 461 in block No.7 of Panrutti B Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District were acquired for the public purpose of setting up an industrial complex and satellite cities with all infrastructural facilities by the Government of Tamil Nadu under sec 4(1) Notification dated 27.01.1999 in G.O.Ms.No.104 of the Industrial Department. Since the 4(1) notification was issued invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the said act was dispensed with. Thereafter Section 6 declaration dated 05.05.1999 in G.O.Ms.No.365 of the Industrial Department was issued. Pursuant to Section 6 declaration, notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, were issued calling for award enquiry. The award was passed with respect to the petitioners lands on 04.05.2001. Shortly before the award was passed on 04.05.2001, the appellants filed the above writ petitions and obtained interim orders, restraining the respondent from dispossessing them from the lands. The compensation awarded was deposited on 21.12.2001.

3. In the back drop of the undisputed facts narrated above the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions after considering in detail the contentions raised by the appellants as well as the respondent's counsel by the common order dated 23.09.2021. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioners in the writ petitions have preferred the above writ appeals.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised three main objections to the acquisition. According to the counsel, the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not justified, in as much as, there was no urgency and further an opportunity to object under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was denied by such invocation of the urgency provision. The further objection of the learned counsel was that by virtue of Sections 21 and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 1997, the acquisition under the land Acquisition Act 1894 lapsed. According to the counsel, when the Special Act namely Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 1997 was enacted the acquisition ought to have been initiated, only under the said Act and the invocation of the Land Acquisition Act was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel finally submitted that, after the advent of the Right to Fair Compensaiton Act 2013, the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as neither compensation was paid nor was possession taken. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the writ appeals be allowed.

5. In contra, the learned Government pleader submitted that, the learned Single Judge has comprehensively dealt with all the issues and has rightly dismissed the writ petitions and therefore the writ appeals are without merit and same deserve to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and we have further perused the records.

7. The first objection of the appellants is with regard to the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the learned counsel there is absolutely no justification for invocation of urgency clause and further the valuable right