The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for justifying the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the burden of proof on the party alleging malafides, and the necessity for strict construction and scrupulous compliance with statutory provisions. The judgment also emphasized the consequences of non-compliance with statutory requirements, such as the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25187 of 2010 dated 05.09.2019.)

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. The appellant filed W.P. No.25187 of 2010 seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification in G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.09.2010, published in Dinakaran issue dated 25.09.2010 in so far as the appellant’s land is concerned, namely land comprising Survey No.9/1B2, Akkaravattam Village, Karaikal, Taluk, (Sl.No.131). The appellant’s case before the Writ Court was that he purchased the property comprising survey No.9/1B/2, measuring an extent of 2.03.60 hectares, in and by sale deed dated 09.10.2003 and that the said land was not agricultural in character but only a house site. Permission was sought for laying out the site and the Additional Director, Karaikal Planning Authority had also issued a No Objection Certificate on 27.08.2004 for forming the residential layout. Subsequently, The Member Secretary, Karaikal Planning Authority in and by proceedings dated 13.09.2005 also granted an interim approval for the layout. Both the Public Works Department as well as the Revenue Department clarified that the subject lands do not fall in the zone of the proposed western by-pass road. In fact the Revenue Department, in and by a communication dated 29.11.2004 also clarified that the proposed layout was not covered under any Land Acquisition Scheme or hit by the Land Reforms Act. In compliance with conditions for granting the layout approval, the appellant also executed a Gift Deed on 17.10.2008 in favour of the Executive Engineer (Electricity Department), Karaikal and another Gift Deed dated 31.03.2009 in favour of the Karaikal Municipal Council. Thereafter the Planning Authority also issued a final approval of the layout on 06.05.2009, subsequent to which the appellant started selling the plots in the layout. At that point of time, the appellant was shocked to come across the acquisition notification in G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.09.2009 which included the appellant’s property at S.No.131. The appellant came to know that 5A enquiry contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act was also dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause. The appellant therefore sought for information with regard to alleged acquisition and on 04.08.2010, the Public Works Department confirmed that the by-pass road project was only in a preliminary stage and that no funds were also set apart for the said project for the financial year 2010-11. It was also admitted by the Public Welfare Department that the western by-pass road project was initially commenced in the year 1995.

3. It is the further case of the appellant that originally the alignment of the bypass road was different and only under such circumstances, the approval for his layout had been sanctioned. However, obliging certain vested interested persons, the authorities have changed the alignment of the road and caused the impugned notification and it is the specific case of the appellant that he had not sold 33 plots in the layout and he was in physical possession of the same. The main ground of challenge to the acquisition proceedings was that the very invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was malafide, arbitrary and illegal, especially when the project was initiated way back in 1995 and the authorities had confirmed as late as in 2010 that no funds have been allocated and therefore, the dispensation of Section 5A enquiry under the guise of invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 was clearly erroneous and entire proceedings therefore stood vitiated.

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 22.09.2010 and all information received by the appellant before the said date was irrelevant. It was also stated that Section 6 declaration was also issued on 18.02.2