The extension of statutory timelines under land acquisition laws must be substantiated with valid justifications; failure to do so warrants quashing of the extension order.

ORDER :

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

2.Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 01.09.1976 to acquire 2.86 acres of land comprised in survey Nos.301/1, 301/2 and 302/3A in Aruppukottai Village for the purpose of establishing bus depot of Pandian Roadways Corporation.

3.Urgency clause set out in Section 17(4) of the Act was also invoked. The Government while conceding the title of the writ petitioner's grandfather Late. Ramasamy Naicker over Survey No. 302/3A treated the remaining two survey numbers as Government dry waste and did not award any compensation. Aruppukottai was an inam village. The writ petitioner's father Shri.T.R.Dinakaran agitated the matter in settlement proceedings. The settlement authorities declined to grant patta. The petitioner's father filed W.P.No.11205 of 1986 before the High Court. On 19.01.1990, the writ petition was allowed and ryotwari patta was directed to be granted in favour of the petitioner's father. Questioning the same, the Government filed W.A No.1145 of 1991 but the same was dismissed on 10.06.1998. The settlement proceedings thus attained finality. The title over survey No.301/1 and 301/2 came to be recognised as belonging to the petitioner's father. Armed with this, the petitioner's father challenged the land acquisition proceedings that were initiated on 01.09.1976 by filing W.P No. 3753 of 2000. On 18.12.2009, the writ petition was allowed and it was held that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.301/1 and 301/2 stood lapsed. Liberty was given to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. However, no fresh notification was issued availing the said liberty. Hence, the petitioner's father filed Cont.P.No.1082 of 2011. Thereupon questioning the order dated 18.12.2009, the Government filed writ appeal and the same was numbered as W.A.No.2407 of 2011. This writ appeal also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 26.06.2013.

4.The 1894 Act was repealed and the Parliament enacted Central Act 30 of 2013 (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013). Even though the new Act had come into force on 01.01.2014, a fresh notification came to be issued under the repealed Act. Challenging the same, WP(MD)No.5854 of 2017 was filed. Even though the acquisition proceedings were clearly not maintainable, considering the public interest involved, the High Court took the view that the matter can be resolved by awarding compensation to the land owner by fixing a sum of Rs.800/- per sq.ft. This figure was acceptable to the writ petitioner's father. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.07.2018 by recording the same. A default clause was also incorporated to the effect that if the compensation amount was not paid, possession of the land should be handed over to the land owner within a period of three months. The authorities neither paid the compensation nor surrendered possession. Hence, the petitioner's father filed Cont.P. (MD)No.160 of 2019. In the meanwhile, W.A.(MD)No.538 of 2019 was filed questioning the order dated 23.07.2018 in W.P.(MD)No. 5854 of 2017. The writ appeal was dismissed on 28.07.2021 with a cost of Rs.1 Lakh. Challengin