The finality of land acquisition proceedings and the principle that challenges to such proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Common Order dated 19.06.2012 made in W.P.Nos.9368, 25180, 27521, 27522, 27523, 12051, 24678, 24679, 27886 of 2006.)

Common Judgment

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1.The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. They filed the writ petitions challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [in short "Old Act"] vide G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994, which came to be dismissed, vide impugned common order dated 19.06.2012, against which these writ appeals have been filed.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as follows:

2.1. An extent of 14.3 acres were acquired under the scheme of acquisition known as Land Assembly Development Project for the development of residential and commercial neighbourhood, both sides of the Inner Ring Road. Section 4(1) Notification was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development Department (UDIII) dated 09.03.1994.

2.2. Challenging the Section 4(1) Notification, the writ petitions were filed on the following grounds:

 (i) Section 4(1) Notification does not disclose the public purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired.

(ii) There is a time lag of 60 days from the date of notification, date of publication in two local newspapers and the date of publication in the locality.

(iii) The publication in newspapers has not been effected in two dailies which are widely in circulation in the locality.

2.3. The Writ Petitions, after contest, came to be dismissed by this Court, vide common order dated 19.06.2012, against which the present writ appeals are filed.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants made the following contentions:

(i) Section 4(1) Notification was published on 06.04.1994 and whereas Section 6 Declaration was published on 28.06.1995, after a delay of one year and 2 1/2 months and since there was no valid declaration under Section 6 made within one year from the date of Section 4(1) Notification, the notification issued would lapse and the State is bound to issue a fresh section 4(1) Notification. But in the present case, no such fresh notification was issued.

(ii) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.248/94 on 06.04.1994 for the proposed acquisition of 14.35 acres of land in Manjambakkam village only, but the said Government Order and the proposed acquisition was not circulated in that locality and there was no proper publication in this regard.

(iii) The land acquisition was challenged by one Revathy Mohan in W.P.No.13815 of 1995, who is the owner of S.No.139/4B and the Government Order was quashed on 25.07.2002 on the ground that no notice and no proper paper publication was effected. CMDA filed an appeal claiming that they published in Adhistam & Kumari Murasu dailies, but the writ appeal was dismissed on 03.11.2004, as the said newspapers do not have wide circulation in the locality.

(iv) If the acquisition Government Order was quashed by any one of the parties covered in the same acquisition proceedings, it applies to all the properties mentioned under the Government Order. Originally, 535.57 acres were acquired for the project but 521.22 acres was released and the remaining 14.35 acres of land alone was acquired and nearly 97.40% of land was released and as such, the entire acquisition proceedings are discriminatory.

(v) Though the Government claimed to have conducted Section 5A enquiry, the names of dead persons were contained in Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration and as such, the Government had never conducted any enquiry under Section 5A of the old Act.

4. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the second resp