COMMON JUDGMENT

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J)

The appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board has brought these appeals challenging the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.Nos.12299 and 12424 of 1994 dated 09.12.2010.

2. Ms.C.Shyamala, learned counsel for the appellant/Housing Board submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the vital aspect that no Writ Petition would lie after passing of the award in the land acquisition proceedings, in Award No.5/1994 dated 03.08.1994. Moreover, when the requisition body/Housing Board is a necessary party to the proceedings, they should have been impleaded in the Writ Petitions.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.12299 and 12424 of

1994 dated 09.12.2010, on the only limited ground that no prior approval was obtained as per Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the land plan schedule was approved by the Board in Resolution No.24, dated 04.04.1990 and the permission was also obtained from the Government, vide letter No.25726/L-1/90-1, dated 16.05.1990 and hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Writ Petitions on the ground that no prior approval was obtained.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring to the letter No.47685/L.A.2.3/87, dated 19.9.91 issued by the Assistant Secretary (L), Office of the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, argued that the Government had granted approval for land acquisition. In the said letter, it has been specifically stated that the Government had issued orders directing the District Revenue Officer, Erode to send the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in respect of the lands in Muthampalayam Village, Erode, measuring an extent of 789.52 acres, by dropping the remaining lands as approved by the Board in its Resolution No.24, dated 04.04.1990. However, we are unable to agree with the said submission. The relevant paragraph of the said letter is extracted below:

"I am to invite kind attention to the reference 1st cited wherein the Government have passed orders and directed the District Revenue Officer, Erode to send the 4(1) Notification in respect of Erode Muthampalayam Village measuring an extent of 789.52 acres by dropping the remaining lands as approved by the Board in its resolution No.24, dated 4.4.1990. A copy of the reference 1st cited is enclosed for ready reference. There is no separate orders has been issued by the Government in this regard."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the said letter dated

19.9.91, submitted that as prior approval has been granted by the Government, the Writ Petitions filed for quashing the land acquisition proceedings, ought to have been dismissed.

6. In reply, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 in WA.No.583 of 2015 submitted that the lands in question belong to the respondents 2 and 3/Writ Petitioners. As per Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, before initiating acquisition proceedings, prior approval ought to have been obtained from the Appropriate Government and other mandatory conditions should also have been followed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellant has not placed any relevant documents before this Court to show that there was full compliance of the mandatory conditions as contained in Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. In similar circumstances, similarly affected parties had filed WP.Nos.14061 and 14062 of 1994, challenging the acquisition proceedings and the learned Single Judge, by order dated 20.07.2001 quashed the acquisition proceedings and allowed the said Writ Petitions on the sole ground that no prior approval was obtained from the Government. In the present case also, no prior approval was obtained from the Government for initiating acquisition proceedings and therefore, the learned Single Judge, follow