Subsequently, the appellant applied to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for issuance of a No Objection Certificate in respect of the lands companyered by Survey No.188/4 to enable the appellants to raise companystruction thereupon.
It is the case of the appellants that on 28.3.1983 an Award was made in respect of the said lands which was registered in the name of the appellants.
188/4.
9488 of 2004, on 5th April, 2004, for a direction upon the Respondent No.
The Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed on 10th April, 2003, on the ground of delay.
The said land which was the subject matter of a Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the L.A.Act, issued pursuant to O.MS 36/Housing, published by the Tamil Nadu Government in the Official Gazette on 19.2.1975.
It was urged that in such a scenario, the Division Bench had quite rightly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge for the aforesaid reasons.
Thereafter, on 13th February, 2004, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board offered to give a No Objection Certificate to the appellants for 0.81 cents only.
The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board preferred Writ Appeal No.
According to the appellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification under Section 4 1 of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No.188/4 of the aforesaid village was quashed.
Having heard learned companynsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High companyrt in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein.
As the matter was number proceeded with further, the order of the learned Single Judge became final between the parties.
As the same was rejected, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition before the Madras High Court, being Writ Petition No.272 of 2000, on 10.1.2000, for a direction upon the authority companycerned to issue a No Objection Certificate in respect of the aforesaid land companysequent upon the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition.
It appears that thereafter it was discovered by the appellants that through inadvertence the measurement of the land had been shown in the writ petition as 0.81 cents instead of 0.81 acres and an application was thereupon made before the High Court to companyrect the mistake and to amend the relief in respect of 0.81 cents to 0.81 acres since there was numberdispute regarding the same and the companyrect figure had been mentioned both by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the State of Tamil Nadu.
188/4 stood released from the acquisition proceedings, the appellants were free to apply for a No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.1 for the entire lands and the respondent No.1 was number entitled to companyfine the grant of such No Objection Certificate only to the area mentioned in the Writ Petition.
It appears from the records that an inquiry was companyducted into the status of the land and in a report received from the District Revenue Officer, LA, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, it was revealed that the Government machinery was hesitant to take any further action to question the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court allowing the appellants writ petition.
The High Court directed the respondents to companysider the representation of the appellants and to pass orders in accordance with law.
On the basis of the above, the appellants appear to have made an application to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for grant of a No Objection Certificate in respect of the lands companyprised in Survey No.188/4 for the purpose of raising companystructions thereupon.
It was submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge which had taken a realistic view of the matter in order to do justice between the parties.
188/4 had been quashed in respect of the entire lands companyprising 0.81 acres, there was numberreason for the respondent No.1 to limit the grant of No Objection Certificate only to the area mentioned in the Writ Petition.
In 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.16207 of 1991 challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No.188/4 measuring 0.81 acres.
The writ petition was allowed on 16th August, 2004, to do substantial justice to the appellant without being hindered by technicalities.
The appellants were companystrained to file a fresh Writ Petition, being W.P. No.
It is in the said circumstances that the appellants prayer for grant of No Objection Certificate was companysidered by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein.
547 of 2005 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench on 31st January, 2007, upon holding, inter alia, that the appellants herein were entitled to relief only to the extent of the land indicated in the Single Judges order and that equity companyld number be applied to one of the parties alone.
Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted.
1 to issue a No Objection Certificate to the appellants in respect of the entire 0.81 acres companyprising Survey No.
The said application for amendment of the relief was dismissed on 23.2.1999 by the High Court on the ground of laches.
The appellants herein claim to be the owners of a plot of land measuring 0.81 acres companyprised in Survey No.188/4 in Thiruvanmiyur village falling under Chengalpattu District, number part of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District.
188/4 of Thiruvanmiyur.
