Failure to challenge acquisition proceedings negates claims regarding subsequent notifications; valid legal actions prevail despite procedural delays.

ORDER :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging a paper notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17.09.2025 for sale of 859 plots for the people belonging to the economically weaker sections.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after the Act) by way of G.O.Ms.No.784, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 04.08.1989. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued under G.O.Ms.No.1191 of the same Department dated 01.10.1990. An award came to be passed under Section 11 of the said Act on 04.06.2001. These dates and events are not in dispute.

3. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, she is the owner of S.Nos.75, 76, 77, 91 and 92 described in S.No. 1025 situated at Kulvanigapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Melapalayam Sub Registrar Division, Tirunelveli District, by way of settlement deed dated 07.09.2012. According to the petitioner, the revenue records have been mutuated in her name in January 2021. When she came over to Madurai, she found that some earth work is being carried out by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and they claimed that the lands have been acquired. The petitioner had filed W.P.(MD)No.18680 of 2021 seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents from laying of roads and putting up construction in S.No.1025. This writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.11.2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 24.11.2022.

4. It is further contended in the writ petition that patta standing in her name was mutated in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board behind her back and she was forced to file W.P.(MD)No.10436 of 2024. This Court by an order dated 05.06.2024, allowed the writ petition on the ground that the mutation of the revenue records has taken place behind her back and remitted the matter back to the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, to pass fresh orders on merits after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the present impugned notification has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board calling for applications from the economically weaker sections of the Society for sale of 859 plot. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, when the property was settled in favour of the writ petitioner, it was already an approved layout and the plots were standing separately in the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, notice should have been issued to the writ petitioner calling the enquiry after notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, no notice was issued. He further submits that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.10.1990 and the award was passed only on 04.06.2001 and therefore, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed in view of the fact that the award has not been passed within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act. He relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Kumar Gandhi Vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, (2018) 7 SCC 763 and Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 5 SCC 85.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further submits that though the petitioner's name was reflected in the revenue records, no notice was issued either for an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act or for passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner or his predecessors in title have never questioned the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, the authorities cannot rely upon the stay order obtained by the adjacent land owners to get over the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 1