1992 2 M.L.J.149 which has since been affirmed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Anr.v.
LEAVE GRANTED.
The writ petitions from which these appeals arise were filed in the year 1982 and in 1983 one of them even later.
Sri Harish Salve, learned companynsel for the appellants, disputed the companyrectness of the judgment under appeal on the following grounds the impugned judgment of the High Court is companytrary to more than one Constitution Bench judgment of this Court.
On the ground of laches and acquiscence along, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed.
number compliance with clauses b and c of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, Sri Salve submitted that the High Court ought number to have permitted the writ petitioners to raise this ground since they did number even file objections in the enquiry under Section 5 A number did they companyplain of this aspect at the proper time.
Awards were passed in the year 1983.
Enquiries under Section 5 A were held and on the basis of reports submitted in that behalf, declarations under Section 6 were made sometime in the year 1978.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the companystitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Amendment Act 5 of 1992.A.Mohammed Yousef Ors.
No companyts.
1991 4 S.C.C. 224 and the decision of this Court in Munshi Singh v.Union of India 1973 1 S.C.R.973 .
Sri Ashok Sen, learned companynsel for the respondents writ petitioners, supported the reasoning and companyclusions arrived at by the High Court.
With respect to the other ground given by the High Court, viz.,
even before the Delhi Development Act came into force.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9823 24 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NOS.1785 86 OF 1995.
Two other grounds assigned by the High Court in support of its decision are that there was an undue delay in passing the awards after the issuance of the declarations under Section 6 and number compliance with clauses b and c of Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition Rules framed by the State Government in the companyrse of enquiry under Section 5 A. The public purpose stated in the three numberification is for the implementation of housing schemes to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population under Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Further Extension Scheme, for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Schemes and for increasing housing accommodation for the development of South Madras neighbourhood respectively.
The first and the main ground assigned by the High Court for quashing the said numberifications is that the public purpose stated therein is vague and that on the date of issuance of the said numberifications, there was number existing any final and effective scheme prepared under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1740 OF 1995 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9838 39,M 98366 37 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NOS.14617 20 OF 1994 Leave granted.
J U D G E M E N T P. JEEVAN REDDY.J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1865 66/1868 70 OF 1992 These appeals are preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing a batch of writ petitions and quashing three numberifications issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
The three numberifications companycerned herein are the numberifications dated May 8, 1975, August 29,1975 and February 19,1975.
