ZARIN TAJ BEGUM Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 12. 06. 2001, passed in W. P. No. 16135 of 1989, dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, the writ petitioners/land owners have preferred the above Appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants/writ petitioners, they are the owners of the property in R. S. No. 1625/2, measuring 9 grounds 1002 sq. ft. , of Egmore Village. The said property was sought to be acquired by the respondents. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) was published in the Government Gazette on 01. 10. 1986. After enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 19. 11. 1987. After service of the notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, Award was passed on 17. 11. 1989.

(3.) THE appellants/petitioners filed W. P. No. 14229 of 1989, challenging the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the declaration under Section 6 is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. When the said Writ Petition was pending, notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioners, intimating about the passing of the final award. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 16135 of 1989, challenging the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Meanwhile, the earlier Writ Petition in W. P. No. 14299 of 1989 was dismissed on 19. 03. 1990 by a learned single Judge of this Court. As against the said order, the petitioners preferred an Appeal in W. A. No. 970 of 1990. The Division Bench, by order dated 08. 11. 1990, considering the question raised, directed the petitioners to go before the Civil Court. While directing so, the Division Bench vacated all the findings rendered by the learned single Judge on the questions raised before him in the writ petition including the one relating to the date of publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the locality. Based on the direction of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 970 of 1990, the petitioners filed Civil Suit O. S. No. 1917 of 1991 before the City Civil Court, Madras, challenging the acquisition proceedings and also obtained an interim order. The Union of India also filed a suit in C. S. No. 159 of 1996 on the Original Side of this Court, seeking for an injunction against the petitioners, restraining them from alienating the property pending acquisition proceedings. The suit filed by the petitioners before the City Civil Court in Civil Suit O. S. No. 1917 of 1991 subsequently came to be transferred to this Court and numbered as C. S. No. 26 of 1997. Both the suits were ultimately dismissed by this Court by Judgment dated 20. 01. 1997 on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners challenging the acquisition proceedings cannot be maintained on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar (AIR 1995 SC 1955), however, liberty had been given to the petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the other Writ Petition, viz. , W. P. No. 16135 of 1989, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Appeal, came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners are entitled to advance arguments on merits and the only grievance of the petitioners was that the declaration under Section-6 of the Act was published beyond the period of one year as prescribed, as such, the said declaration is illegal since the same is contrary to the proviso to Section-6 of the Act. Inasmuch as the findings rendered in the earlier Writ Petition, ie. , W. P. No. 14299 of 1989, had been set aside by the Division Bench, the petitioners were permitted to raise all the contentions that have been available in the latter Writ Petition, viz. , W. P. No. 16135 of 1989.