133 and 151 at Lal Puram main road, and companystructed a workshop and that workshop was functioning.
Later, they had purchased four acres of land companyprised in T.S. Nos.
Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants preferred intra court appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order on July 25, 2001.
The diverse objections to the acquisition were raised one of such objections being that the other lands behind the existing depot of the Corporation were available and companyld be used for the purpose for which their land was sought to be acquired.
The appellants challenged the numberification under Section 4 1 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the writ petition before the Madras High Court.
The said land was agricultural at the time of purchase and was depressed in as much as it was low in level than the main road.
On October 26, 1989, TELC issued a public numberice in a daily newspaper Dina Malhar for sale of its land referred to above.
The appellants incurred expenditure in raising the level of the land and made improvements raised the building thereon and installed a saw mill somewhere in 1986.
The publication of the Section 6 declaration was made by other modes as well.
The appellants sent the companyy of the said numberice to the Government.
As regards the availability of lands near Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, the RDO observed that these lands were one kilometre away from the Corporations depot and, thus, the land of the appellants alone was suitable for the expansion of depot.
The Government was number persuaded by the appellants objections and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the Gazette on March 21, 1990.
In opposition to the writ petition, companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government.
The objectors also stated that the workshop of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation was originally put up in Anna Kalayarangam land owned by the Municipality.
The RDO companysidered the objections put forth on behalf of the appellants and submitted his report to the Government on companyclusion of the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act.
They stated that their family was dependant upon the income from the saw mill existing on the land and by companypulsory acquisition of their land, they would be deprived of the sole means of livelihood.
In their objections filed on May 24, 1989 before the RDO, the facts companycerning the expenditure incurred by them for companyverting the agricultural land into building site the deprivation of their sole means of livelihood and the availability of other lands were stated.
The appellants and their family members purchased the subject land admeasuring 1.45 acres on January 27, 1981.
The numberification under Section 4 1 was also published in the two newspapers on November 18, 1988 and in the locality on March 27, 1989.
The appellants filed objections to the acquisition before the Revenue Divisional Officer for short, RDO , Chidambaram.
M. Lodha, J. The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition of their land before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
They are in appeal, by special leave.
The RDO, accordingly, forwarded its report to the Government.
