VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner without due process of law in respect of the petitioner's land bearing Survey bno. 134/1, Ramapuram Village, Ambatur Taluk,tiruvallur District.

(2.) THE petitioner, which is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act 27 of 1975, is running an educational institution for the past 30 years. THE predecessor-in-title of the property owned a total extent of 9. 94 acres comprised in S. No. 134/1 and few other survey numbers in ramapuram villages. THE respondents sought to acquire the said land and issued a notification u/s. 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act on 14. 5. 1995. It was challenged before the High Court in WP No. 527 of 1995. This Court passed an order restraining the respondents therein from dispossessing the petitioners. Pending the writ petition, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board decided to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of S. No. 134/1 - 2. 28 acres. But, the Housing Board expressed its inability to complete the legal formalities in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by the original land owner. THErefore, the land owner withdrew the writ petition to facilitate the respondents to complete the legal formalities of dropping the acquisition proceedings. It is also learnt that the Housing Board has submitted a proposal for issuance of necessary orders for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings with respect to s. No. 134/1 by publication of notification cancelling the acquisition proceedings. Since then, they are approaching the Government to complete the formalities to drop the land acquisition proceedings. Under those circumstances, in the year 1996, the petitioner herein purchased that land. So far no action has been taken to exclude the said land from acquisition proceedings. It is also learnt that the respondents have dropped acquisition proceedings for some other similarly placed persons. While so, the respondents are now trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land they have purchased. THE petitioner invested a huge sums of money in the land believing the promise given by the respondents that the acquisition proceedings would be dropped. THErefore, they cannot go back on the promise and dispossess the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Senior Court Mr. Masilamani submitted that the petitioner's right cannot be worser than a trespasser. Even, the trespasser cannot be thrown out without prior notice. THErefore, this petitioner is entitled for notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.