JUDGMENT :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order of this Court, dated 14.06.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.9070 of 2018.

The issue to be decided is about the validity, legality and constitutionality of the proposal to initiate acquisition by invoking the urgency clause under Section 40 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these cases are as follows :

Writ Appeals :-

2. The Writ Petitioners/respondents in these Writ Appeals are owners of small extent of lands out of an extent of 7.28.50 Hectares, in respect of which, the first appellant has issued G.O.Ms.No.148, Public (Military), Department, dated 23.02.2018, insofar as the acquisition in respect of the Writ Petitioners' land is concerned. As per the said Government Order, the acquisition was proposed for re-habilitation package for the displaced Inayathukanpatti villagers invoking urgency provisions of the Act.

3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Tanjore, forwarded an application submitted by an individual to the Deputy Tahsildar seeking an information whether the land in S.Nos.4 and 5 in Inayathukanpatti village in Tanjore District is under any acquisition for the expansion of airport station and airport run way. It is informed by the seventh appellant that no land in S.Nos.4 and 5 of Inayathukanpatti village is under any acquisition. It was, thereafter, a few layouts were approved and the Writ Petitioners and two others have also purchased the plots in the approved layout. It was thereafter, by the impugned Government Order, an extent of 7.28.5 Hectares of land is proposed to be acquired for re-habilitation package for Inayathukanpatti villagers in Tanjore District by invoking the urgency clause.

4. It is in the course of proceedings, the lands of the Writ Petitioners are sought to be acquired to accommodate the people, who lost their lands or displaced, while acquiring lands for expansion of Tanjore Airport. By referring to the terms of the impugned Government Order, the respective Writ Petitioners have raised several grounds, which are as follows:

(a)The impugned Government Order is arbitrary, unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice.

(b)The impugned Government Order depriving the opportunity to the Writ Petitioners to raise their objections to the acquisition in terms of Section 15 of the Act is unconstitutional, as there is no urgency and there is no legitimate purpose or object in invoking the urgency clause. The individual land owners have purchased the housing plots with the fond hope of constructing a residential house and that such developed lands are sought to be acquired to re-habilitate the persons, who have lost their lands in previous acquisition proceedings initiated for Airforce station.

(c)Having regard to purpose of acquisition, as indicated in the impugned Government Order, which would result in depriving the rights of more numbers of plot owners, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power. Section 40 of the Act does not contemplate invoking of urgency clause for re-habilitating the persons, who have lost their lands in prior acquisition for a public purpose.

5.The appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out that acquisition of lands proposed for rehabilitation, if proceeded under normal course will take more time and that therefore, there is real urgency. The counter affidavit was to the effect that the beneficiaries of the proposed acquisition have not vacated the place from the lands, which were acquired earlier and that the present acquisition is in the best interest of security and aerospace safety. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the District Collector, Tanjore, vide letter, d