The court emphasized the importance of truthful claims and participation in legal proceedings, and upheld the validity of the invocation of the Central Act for land acquisition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7846 of 2005 dated 28.04.2018.)

P.B. Balaji, J

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. She had filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the Section-4(1) Notification as well as the consequential Section-6 Declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as being illegal in so far as it related to her lands and to consequently forbear the Respondents from acquiring the Petitioner’s lands.

2. The case of the Writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that she was never served with any notice of Land Acquisition proceedings by any authorities and that only in November 2004, on receipt of information from the neighbours, she came to know that some proceedings had been initiated. The Petitioner, thereafter made representations to the District Collector, Thilluvallur and also to the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Thiruvallur on 01.12.2004 and 02.12.2004 respectively. As there was no response from both the authorities, the writ petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Collector, Thiruvallur to consider her representation dated 01.12.2004. The said W.P.No.8569 of 2005 was allowed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.12.2004, directing the District Collector to dispose-off the Petitioner''s representation. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that despite the said order of this Hon''ble Court, she was kept in dark about the acquisition proceedings and on the specific allegations that she neither received Section-4(1) notification nor enquiry notice under Section-5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the subsequent Section-6 declaration, the petitioner challenged the land Acquisition proceedings before the Writ Court.

3. Before the Writ Court, the 2nd respondent, Special Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit stating that the procedure mandated under the Land Acquisition Act was strictly followed and the allegations made by the Writ petitioner were false and incorrect. It was also stated that even possession was taken over by the department on 28.12.1989 and the compensation amount was also deposited in the Civil Court vide Civil Court Deposit C.No.OA40/100/709691 dated 26.12.1989 and further, a reference was also made to the Sub-Judge, Thiruvallur. It is also stated that house site pattas have also been issued to Adi Dravidars, after possession was taken and that the Petitioner had approached the Court belatedly. On these grounds, the Respondents sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The Learned Single Judge finding that the Petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands and had sworn to a false affidavit that she was never served with any acquisition notice ,be it Section 4(1) or 5A enquiry, which were found to be incorrect, on perusal of the records, held that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed. Even on the ground of delay and laches the Learned Single Judge found against the petitioner. The Learned Single Judge also found that the petitioner was trying to blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stand and ultimately dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal on the grounds that the acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act were null and void as the acquisition ought to have been done under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act-31 of 1978) and that the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 would apply and the petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the said new Act.

6. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant, Mr.R.Prabhakaran and the Special Government Pleader, Mr.U.M.Ravichandran for Respondents 1 and 2; We have also perused the records, besides the order of the Learned Single Judge.

7. The C