When the Notifications for acquisition came to be passed, two batches of writ petitions were filed before the High Court the first batch companysisted of W.P. No.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.10.1975 and published on 12.11.1975, followed by the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued and published on 09.11.1978 and 10.11.1978 respectively.
603 to 615 of 1997 and the Judgment dated 27.09.2006 passed in the Review Application Nos.
The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to acquire 513.52 acres of land including the land in question, in and around Chennai, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter the Act for the purpose of Ambattur Neighborhood Housing Scheme.
271/1 and 271/5 of the village Mogappair.
Such remarks along with the Objections of the landowners formed the basis for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act ergo, knowledge of those remarks or companytentions of the requisitioning body were crucial for the landowners to sustain their objections.
108 to 120 of 2006 in the Writ Appeal Nos.
In the batch matter companycerning A. S. Naidu, the parties fought a strenuous battle which resulted in a lengthy discourse and an elaborate order of the High Court.
The land in question in the present Appeals, in all 1 acre and 10 cents, owned originally by V. Perumal, forms part of Survey Nos.
7625 of 1982 filed by P. Velu, son of V. Perumal, while the second batch included W.P. Nos.
603 to 615 of 1997, whereby the High Court had directed the Appellant Government State to issue No Objection Certificates to the companytesting Respondents before us.
It should be numbered immediately that the statute has subsequently been amended to mandate that an Award has to be passed within two three years, thereby substantially addressing the grievance of companypensation being a pittance owing to it being calculated after several years of the Notification.
This companytention of the writ petitioners that Rule 3 b of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been infracted because of number furnishing of the said remarks to the landowners found favour with the High Court.
On these two companynts thus, the Writ Petition of A. S. Naidu along with some of the other parties was partly allowed by the High Court by granting the relief of quashing of the said Declaration vide Order dated 08.01.1988.
271 is 4 acres and 10 cents the said 1 acre and 10 cents owned by V. Perumal and another 3 acres owned by J. Ponnial and A. S. Naidu.
The aforementioned three persons had obtained an approved layout plan from the Director of Town Planning on 07.03.1975 with respect to the said Survey No.
The total area of the land falling under the said Survey No.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. The Appellant, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, is taking exception to the Judgment dated 07.04.2006 passed by the High Court in the Writ Appeal Nos.
7499 and 8328 of 1983 filed by A. Naidu.
The writ petitioners therein averred that the remarks, which were offered by the requisitioning body, i.e. the Housing Board, upon furnishing to it the Objections of the landowners, had number been companymunicated to the latter.
The former batch assailed the Constitutional validity of Sections 11 1 and 23 1 of the Act and companytended that the companypensation determined as on the date of publication of a numberification under Section 4 of the Act was inequitable and arbitrary.
The second batch laid an assault to the Notifications published under the Act in their entirety.
