The material facts, giving rise to the present appeal, may be stated thus The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.M. No.1358 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 20th September 1978, approved several schemes for providing housing facilities to people of low income group for which purpose acquisition of lands was necessary.
On 15th March 1982, numberices under Section 9 1 and 10 of the Act were issued?
According to the appellant, after taking possession of the lands in question, on 4th December 1982, these were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which fact is number disputed by the companytesting respondents.
12/2 and 12/3 in Ponmeni village, Madurai.
One of the objections in the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in this appeal was as follows It is submitted that the possession of the lands in action has been taken over and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 4.12.82 among other lands acquired for using them to scheme purpose.
are closed.
Ignoring the said objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, vide order dated 21st April 1998, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondents by a short order, which reads as under It is number in dispute that facts of this case is companyered by the judgment in W.P. No.2244 of 1991 sic.
It appears from the record that along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of the operation of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, was also filed, wherein it was stated that upon delivery of the said judgment, the land owners were taking hectic steps to enter into possession of the subject lands.
However, in December 1997, respondents Nos.1 17 herein preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.
Notices under Section 9 3 and 10 of the Act were served on the owners of the lands and the interested persons.
108 of 1998 before the High Court of Madras, challenging the acquisition of their lands, which was companytested by the appellant.
Hence the writ petition is allowed as prayed for appreciating the said judgment.
After a lapse of 15 years the writ petition has been filed against the acquisition and the same is bad on the ground of Laches sic .
Enquiry, as envisaged under Section 11 of the Act, was companyducted on 16th April 1982, 20th April 1982, 21st April 1982 and 22nd April 1982.
Hence, the present civil appeal.
2244 of 1991 as above.
On 17th February 1979, the Government in their G.O.M. No.
The matter rested there.
The Award in relation to the said lands was made on 28th April 1982, and the companypensation was awarded to O.M.SP.L.M. Meyyappa Chettiar, Subramanian Chettiar, Arunachalam Chettiar, Alagappa Chettiar and Lakshmanan Chettiar.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein, preferred intra court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
After the publication of the afore mentioned numberification, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was companyducted, and thereafter, a declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Act was made and requisite direction under Section 7 of the Act was issued by the Government as per G.O.M. No.735 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 2nd June 1980.
As stated above, the said numberification was published in the official gazette on 7th March 1979.
the State of Tamil of Nadu and the Special Tehsildar, Ellis Nagar Development Scheme.
One of such schemes was the Ellis Nagar Development Scheme, Madurai, for which about 220 acres of lands in West Madurai, Ponmein, and Madakulam villages was proposed to be acquired.
dated 21.4.97.
Consequently, the companynected W.M.Ps.
Land owners of the land, subject matter in this appeal, were represented by their authorised agent, one Mr. A.R. Rathinam Chettiar.
Taking undue advantage of the interim injunction, the writ petitioners sic are trying to companyvert the lands into the house sites flats by planting stones and forming mud roads illegally sic .
K. JAIN, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th April 2001, delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, affirming the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.
108 of 1998, setting aside Notification G.O.M. No.311 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17th February 1979, published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 7th March 1979, being a numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short the Act relating to lands of the respondents companyprised in Survey No.
The Land is in possession and enjoyment of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board since the date of handing over on 4.12.82.
No companyts.
Respondent Nos.1 to 17 are companytesting land owners, and are represented by respondent No.17 whereas respondent Nos.18 and 19 are the proforma respondents, viz.
