The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appropriate government to challenge orders in land acquisition proceedings, the significance of possession, and the validity of subsequent proceedings in the context of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.8096 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008 by this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.8098 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008 by this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.8099 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008 by this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.8100 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008 by this Court.)

Common Judgment:

T. Raja, J.

1. These Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.8096 to 8100 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008.

2. The impugned order has been passed under the premise that the Award has not been passed and hence, the acquisition proceedings would lapse pursuant to Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said order has been passed on the basis of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader who had produced a letter of the Special Tahsildar, Housing Scheme Unit, Coimbatore dated 11.04.2008 wherein it had been clearly stated that the Award has not been passed even after the dismissal of the Writ Petition on 29.07.1997.

3. The instant Writ Appeals have been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board who was the beneficiary under the said acquisition proceedings.

4. Heard Mr.S.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.C.Shyamala, learned standing counsel for the Housing Board and Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr.V.Monoharan, Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.

5. Mr.S.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.815, Housing and Urban Welfare Department was issued on 16.08.1982 which was notified in the Gazette on 01.09.1982 for acquisition of lands for the housing purposes by the Government of Tamil Nadu. 5-A enquiry was conducted on 19.10.1982 and thereafter a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms.No.665, Housing and Urban Welfare Department dated 23.08.1984, which was published in the Government Gazette on 12.09.1984. The Award enquiry was conducted between 20.05.1985 and 23.05.1985 and an Award was passed on 30.05.1985 after the approval accorded by the District Revenue Officer/Collector who was the approving Authority. The Land Acquisition Authority had also handed over possession of the lands to the appellant on 14.10.1985 and layout approval was granted to the project on 11.11.2002. These Writ Petitions were filed by the land owners in the year 2008 seeking for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as no Award has been passed. The learned Judge by his order dated 02.07.2008 had allowed the Writ Petitions recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader based on the written instructions given by the Special Tahsildar, Housing Scheme Unit, Coimbatore dated 11.04.2008 admitting that the Award has not been passed. The same is a factual error that has been made as in this case, the Award has been passed as early as on 30.09.1985 and the amount has also been deposited before the concerned reference Court viz., Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. He had also produced various documents to substantiate the passing of Award, deposit of the Award amount before the reference Court and also the approval accorded by the District Revenue Officer/Collector. In the light of the aforesaid facts, he prayed that this Court to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and set aside the same.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents would vehemently contend that the