Acquisition proceedings cannot be nullified for all parties based on individual petitions unless explicitly challenged; procedural fairness is critical.

1. The Appellant, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, is taking exception to the Judgment dated 07/04/2006 passed by the High Court in the Writ Appeal Nos. 603 to 615 of 1997 and the Judgment dated 27/09/2006 passed in the Review Application Nos. 108 to 120 of 2006 in the Writ Appeal Nos. 603 to 615 of 1997, whereby the High Court had directed the Appellant Government / State to issue No Objection Certificates to the contesting Respondents before us.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to acquire 513.52 acres of land including the land in question, in and around Chennai, under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act') for the purpose of Ambattur Neighborhood Housing Scheme. Notification under S.4 of the Act was issued on 23/10/1975 and published on 12/11/1975, followed by the Declaration under S.6 of the Act issued and published on 09/11/1978 and 10/11/1978 respectively. The land in question in the present Appeals, in all 1 acre and 10 cents, owned originally by V. Perumal, forms part of Survey Nos. 271/1 and 271/5 of the village Mogappair. The total area of the land falling under the said Survey No. 271 is 4 acres and 10 cents: the said 1 acre and 10 cents owned by V. Perumal and another 3 acres owned by A. J. Ponnial and A. S. Naidu. The aforementioned three persons had obtained an approved layout plan from the Director of Town Planning on 07/03/1975 with respect to the said Survey No. 271.

3. When the Notifications for acquisition came to be passed, two batches of writ petitions were filed before the High Court; the first batch consisted of WP No. 7625 of 1982 filed by P. Velu, son of V. Perumal, while the second batch included WP Nos. 7499 and 8328 of 1983 filed by A. S. Naidu. The former batch assailed the Constitutional validity of S.11(1) and S.23(1) of the Act and contended that the compensation determined as on the date of publication of a notification under S.4 of the Act was inequitable and arbitrary. The second batch laid an assault to the Notifications published under the Act in their entirety. It should be noted immediately that the statute has subsequently been amended to mandate that an Award has to be passed within two / three years, thereby substantially addressing the grievance of compensation being a pittance owing to it being calculated after several years of the Notification.

4. In the batch matter concerning A. S. Naidu, the parties fought a strenuous battle which resulted in a lengthy discourse and an elaborate order of the High Court. The writ petitioners therein averred that the remarks, which were offered by the requisitioning body, i.e. the Housing Board, upon furnishing to it the Objections of the landowners, had not been communicated to the latter. Such remarks along with the Objections of the landowners formed the basis for enquiry under S.5A of the Act; ergo, knowledge of those remarks or contentions of the requisitioning body were crucial for the landowners to sustain their objections. This contention of the writ petitioners that R.3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been infracted because of non - furnishing of the said remarks to the landowners found favour with the High Court. The High Court reasoned that the furnishing of the remarks to the landowners was not just another formality or discretionary procedure to be waived of at the whims of the Authorities; and their non - communication had the effect of "setting at naught the very purpose of the enquiry". Another contributory factor buttressing the case of the writ petiti