Kamalammal respondent in Civil Appeal No.3149/2002 also filed Writ Petition No.5343/1999 with similar prayer.
Block Nos.
Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act was issued on 23.10.1975 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 2.11.1978.
Some of the land owners including A.S. Naidu challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
After finalization of the acquisition proceedings, the respondents were paid companypensation in lieu of their land.
The appellant further submits that out of the lands measuring 284.74 acres, lands measuring 271.61 acres were developed by Housing Board which have been more fully shown in GREEN SHADE.
One of the Writ Petitioners alone moved the Supreme Court as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act alone had been quashed and the numberification issued under Section 4 1 of the Act has been retained as per the judgment of the Division Bench.
Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act was also quashed.
For the sake of reference, paragraphs 6 to 10 of the companybined additional affidavit, paragraphs 7 to 12 of the companynter affidavit and paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of the rejoinder affidavit, are reproduced below Combined additional affidavit The appellant submits that out of 513.52 acres of land numberified for acquisition, Award was passed for payment of companypensation only for lands measuring an extent of 284.74 acres and the lands were taken over which are more fully shown in MapA annexed along with this affidavit with RED Boundary Line.
During the pendency of the special leave petitions, the Act was amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Amendment Act No.16 of 1997 in terms of which declaration under Section 6 was required to be published within 3 years from the date of preliminary numberification.
L. Chandrasekaran respondent in Civil Appeal No.3148/2002 who had number challenged the acquisition proceedings filed a writ petition sometime in the year 1997 for issue of a direction to the appellant Board to certify that the acquired land was numberlonger needed for the purpose for which it was acquired.
Out of the remaining extent of 8.29 acres of land for which award was passed, a small portion is under encroachment and the rest suffers from technical problem such as Proper Approach Road etc.
These lands have been shown in YELLOW SHADE and the subject matter of present SLP bearing Survey Numbers 340, 341 343 are shown in ORANGE SHADE in the annexed Sketch A. This appellant submits that, since very large area was acquired, it companyld number be developed at one stretch and the same was divided in various blocks and it has been developed in phased manner by dividing the lands into various blocks.
At this stage, learned companynsel for the appellant pointed but that the object of the acquisition was rehabilitation of the roofless persons by providing roof, but the land has been left vacant, even though, there was numberstay order by this Court for almost 20 years and the Housing Board has taken numbersteps to companystruct a house on the plots.
The erstwhile owners have also a right for having accommodation.
Out of the remaining lands for which Award was passed and litigation is pending is measuring around 2.50 acres has been marked in BLUE SHADE, while lands measuring 2.33 acres have been reconveyed are shown in PINK SHADE.
The High Court quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 leaving the preliminary numberification intact.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioner is entitled to get numberobjection certificate.
and these lands shall be taken up for development after sorting out encroachment and accessibility issues.
Dissatisfied with the High Courts order, A.S. Naidu and others filed S.L.P. C Nos.11353 11355 of 1988.
Writ Appeal No.9/1998 preferred by the appellant Board was disposed of by the Division Bench along with Writ Appeal Nos.676/1997 and 8/1998.
Paragraphs 3, 7 to 9 and 11 of judgment dated 22.9.1998 of the Division Bench, which have bearing on the decision of these appeals, read as under Few land owners preferred writ petitions challenging the acquisition and a Division Bench of the companyrt quashed the declaration u s.6 1 of the Act on 8.1.1988 in respect of the those writ petitioners inter alia holding that Rule 3 b of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules having number been companyplied with and the second provision of Section 6 1 of the Act having number been companyplied with in issuing the declaration u s.6 of the Act.
The Honble Supreme Court finding that numberdeclaration companyld be issued as on the date of the order as the period stipulated under Section 6 of the Act having elapsed allowed the special leave petition and quashed the acquisition in respect of that petitioner alone.
The land of the respondents falling in Survey Nos.340, 341 and 343, Mogappair Village, Sedapet Taluk formed part of 513.52 acres acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Ambattur Neighborhood Scheme.
S. Singhvi, J. These appeals by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for short, the Board are directed against judgment dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.796 and 1135 of 1999 whereby the appellant Board has been directed to reconvey the acquired land on which numberconstruction has been made to the respondents on their depositing the amount of companypensation together with interest at the rate of 9.
