K SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the grounds raised in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they disposed of by a Common Order.

(2.) The lands belonging to the petitioners herein were notified under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act,1978( Act 31/1978) and approved on 25.2.1980 and was gazetted on 26.2.1980. The acquisition proceedings were challenged in W.P.No.1741/1980 by the petitioner in W.P.No.14676/1995 alone before this Court. This Writ Petition was heard along with the other Writ Petitions filed and disposed of on 9.9.1981, declaring that the Act as unconstitutional. In the mean time, an award was passed in Award No. 16/79-80 and Rc.No.A1/4837/78 dated 26.3.1980. The State took the order of this Court to the Supreme Court by filing S.L.Ps. Finally, the Supreme Court by order dated 22.11.1994, allowed the appeals declaring the Act as valid. In view of the order of the Supreme Court, possession of the lands were taken. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present Writ Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from initiating any steps to proceed with the acquisition of lands of the petitioners herein.

(3.) Mr. N.L. Raja learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings are not sustainable as of today, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, declaring the Act 31/1978 as valid, the respondents have initiated land acquisition proceedings as early as in 1980, and the petitioners having succeeded in the Writ Petitions on 9.9.1991, the State has chosen to prefer appeal only in one case, and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in M/S SHENOY AND COMPANY VS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BANGALORE ( A.I.R. 1985 SC 621) the State in the fitness of things, ought to have taken out publication in such cases to alert parties bound by the Government of the fact that an appeal had been preferred before the Supreme Court by them. In the absence of such publication, this Court in equity can direct the respondents to determine the quantum of compensation from the date of publication till the date of taking possession viz., 7.11.1995.