L N VENKATESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- More than a quarter century back proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 10.33 acres of land belonging to the petitioner and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 23.3.1978. Subsequently after service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10351 of 1982 challenging the land acquisition proceedings. Said writ petition was confined to 6 acres of land only. In respect of balance of 4.33 acres of land, presently disputed, the petitioner subsequently filed W.P.No.7645 of 1986 challenging the acquisition proceedings. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.3540 of 1988 to quash the award on the ground that the award was passed beyond the period of limitation. While W.P.No.7645 of 1986 was pending in this Court, the Housing Board passed a resolution dated 29.7.1994 indicating the difficulties to complete the scheme and requested the Government to take appropriate action to release the land from the acquisition. On 20.2.1996, the Government passed an order to proceed in the matter regarding resumption of the land. On 19.7.1996, the writ petition challenging the award was dismissed. Thereafter on 8.8.1997, W.P.No.7645 of 1986 challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the present disputed area of 4.33 acres was dismissed and S.L.P.No.18103 of 1997 has been filed before the Supreme Court and it is stated that now the matter is pending for hearing. In the meanwhile, the respondent Housing Board has passed a resolution dated 31.8.2000 purporting to withdraw the earlier resolution dated 29.7.1994. This subsequent resolution of the Housing Board is challenged by the present petitioner mainly on the ground that the Housing Board has passed the resolution only because the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was ripe for hearing and its earlier resolution dated 29.7.1994 recommending release of the land was likely to be considered by the Supreme Court and only with a view to defeat such possible contention, the Housing Board has passed the subsequent resolution. It has been further submitted that the subsequent resolution has been passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition.

(3.) Coming to the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the resolution dated 31.8.2000 has been passed merely with a view to defeat the possible contention of the petitioner regarding earlier resolution dated 29.7.1994, is a matter to be considered by the Supreme Court in the pending appeal. Inspite of the earlier resolution dated 29.7.1994, WP.No.7645 of 1986 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and the legality of that decision is to be considered in the pending appeal before the Supreme Court. If any of the party has tried to take some steps to defeat any possible contention in the pending appeal, it would be more appropriate to raise such a question before the Appellate Court where the matter is now pending.