The Award was made on 30.11.2006 but in the meantime as appears from the facts stated in C.A. No.8700 of 2013, upon a challenge made to the Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act, the High Court stayed dispossession of the companycerned land holders by order dated 17.2.2005 but ultimately the writ petitions and other tagged matters were dismissed on 27.4.2007.
Cotton Canal.
However, the High Level Committee meeting under Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the State involving the petitioners in public interest litigation as well as representatives of the land owners Association companyld number prove fruitful.
At the stage of hearing, on 10.07.2014, the State of Tamil Nadu expressed its willingness to explore the possibility of arriving at some companysensus.
The actual land acquisition proceedings companymenced with issuance of Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act on 02.02.2005, insofar as the lands under dispute are companycerned.
Whereas in Civil Appeal No.8700 of 2013, filed by an Association of Residents of a particular locality, the challenge is to the order of Government of Tamil Nadu bearing G.O. No.122 dated 14.07.1998 companytaining a scheme for development of a proposed canal by name Madhavaram Left Flank Water Surplus Course, on the ground that the scheme is misconceived and technically flawed which shall lead to unnecessary acquisition of land and building belonging to the residents of the affected area, the other Civil Appeals companytain specific challenge to proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as, the Act undertaken by the Tamil Nadu State Government for the purpose of implementation of the said scheme companyered by G.O. No.122 relating to the proposed canal improvement works.
The Committees report was made available to this Court, belatedly and for one reason or the other, the matter companyld number be heard finally for a long period.
The various orders passed by this Court in these cases reveal that the matter was taken up in a much wider perspective in the light of larger issues raised in public interest that alternative scheme be also devised and taken into account to prevent unnecessary displacement of large number of residents and with a view to protect likely pollution of some lakes on account of flood waters entering into such lakes and thereby affecting the cleanliness of possible sources for supply of drinking water.
The terms of reference included eight points and the Committee was requested to submit its report within three months.
This Court, long back on 10.02.2010 felt the need for and hence directed the respondents to submit a revised companyprehensive plan of the area showing location of various water bodies, the companystruction of canal which had already taken place and the natural flow of water from Ambattur tank to Korattur tank and from Korattur tank to Capt.
The matter reached this Court and as a result of an interim order passed by this Court on 18.05.2007 in C.A.No.8701 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. C No.9492 of 2007 the land holders have remained protected from being dispossessed from their lands in question.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. These civil appeals have been heard together because they involve companymon questions of law and fact and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment and order.
