AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.
It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the W.P. No.2074 of 88 that S.F. No.1474 measuring 4.81 acres of Sanaperatti village, Karur
Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, belongs to the petitioners. For neighbourhood scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Notification u/s 4(1) of the
Central Act I of 1894 was issued by the second respondent in G.O.Ms. No.996 dated 4.11.1982. The same was published in the Government
Gazette on 24.11.82. The second respondent issued declaration u/s 6 of the Act and it was published in the Government Gazette on 14.11.1984.
It is stated that Section 6 of the Act was amended by the Central Act 68/84. u/s 6(2) the declaration u/s 6 must be published in Newspapers and
also in the village. According to them, the amending Act received the assent of the President on 5.9.1987 and hence non-publication in the
Newspapers and in the village vitiates the declaration u/s 6. It is learnt that long after the publication in the gazette, it was published in the
newspapers on 13.5.1985. Even though the Award is said to have been passed on 10.6.1987, nobody was given notice to the Award. With these
averments, they prayed for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings.
Petitioner in W.P. No.2075 of 88 was the owner of Part of S.F. 1407 of Sanapiratti Village, Karur Taluk. The said land was notified for
acquisition. Here also identical contentions have been made by the petitioner as that of the petitioners in W.P. No.2074 of 88. Pending disposal of
the writ petition, after the death of the sole petitioner, his legal representatives, namely, petitioners 2 to 7 were impleaded.
The respondents have filed a counter affidavit only in W.P. No.2074 of 88 wherein it is stated that at the instance of the Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer, Tiruchi Housing Unit, Tiruchirapalli, acquisition of 99.59 acres of dry lands in Senappiratti Village was taken up under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Draft Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in respect of the lands of the petitioners was approved by
the Government in G.O.Ms. No.996 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 4.11.82. Thereafter, enquiry u/s 5A of the said Act was
duly conducted on 28.1.83 and 28.4.83. There were objections to the acquisition from the land owners. They were gone into in detail. However,
the acquisition sought for was for a bona fide public purpose, the Government overruled the objection and declared the acquisition u/s 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act on 15.10.84. The said declaration was published in the Gazette on 14.11.84. As per the amended provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, the declaration notification u/s 6 was got published in the two News Dailies. Accordingly the same was published in ''The Hindu''
and ''Dina Thanthi'' dated 15.5.85 and 13.5.85 respectively. The substance of the declaration was also got published in the locality on 11.6.85.
After obtaining necessary approval and publication of the Direction notification u/s 7 of the said Act, award enquiry was conducted on 2.4.86 and
29.9.86 in the manner prescribed in the Act. After due completion of the Award enquiry, an award was pronounced on 10.6.87 in Award
No.2/87. It is also stated that the entire extent of the lands in S.No.1474 have been handed over to the requisitioning body on 6.1.88. With these
averments they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.R. Alagar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V. Rangaraj, learned
Government Advocate for respondents.
Even though several contentions have been raised in both the writ petitions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners confined his argument by
pointing out only one violation, namely, there was a long unexplained delay between the publication of section 6 declaration in the Government
Gazette and publication in daily Newspapers as well as in the locality. According to him, in view of the long delay the entire acquisition proceedings
from the stage of 6 declaration are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, after taking me through the records
contended that the paper publication and publication in the locality were effected within the reasonable time from the date of Gazette publication in
so far as 6 declaration is concerned. In any event, according to him, the delay in publishing the gist of the 6 declaration in the locality would not
affect the acquisition proceedings since it is not a mandatory but it is only a directory.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
In view of the limited argument, namely, with reference to publication of 6 Declaration, it is unnecessary for me to refer other factual aspects.
The lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for a neighbourhood scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In respect
of the lands covered under W.P. No.2074 of 88, 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette on 24.11.1982, 6 Declaration was
published in the Gazette on 14.11.1984, published in ""The Hindu"" daily on 15.5.85 and in Tamil ""Daily Thanthi"" on 13.5.85 and finally in the
locality on 11.6.85. Like wise, in respect of the lands overed in W.P. No.2075 of 88, 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette
on 4.11.82, 6 declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 19.12.84, (the draft direction u/s 7 of the land acquisition Act was
approved by the Government in their letter dated 25.4.85) and was published in the ""Hindu"" and ""Dinamalar"" simultaneously on 17.5.85 and finally
the substance of the Notification was published in the locality on 11.6.85. The above particulars show that there was delay in publication of 6
declaration in the dailies as well as in the localities. Prior to the amendment Act, 6 declaration has to be published only in the Government Gazette.
However, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Principal Act) was amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. According to the
provisions of the amended Act, every declaration u/s 6 has to be published in two Daily Newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is
situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. The amended section 6(2) is as follows:-
6 (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land in situate
of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at
convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as
the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the
purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.
A reading of the above said provision shows that whenever Government make a declaration, the same has to be published in the Official
Gazette, in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. Apart
from the above formalities, the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said
locality. Further, such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. In the light of the above
provisions, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of long delay in publication of section 6 declaration in the
gazette, the daily newspapers and in the locality, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Mr. Alagar, learned senior counsel in respect of the
above aspect, has very much relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. M.
Natarajan, . Their Lordships in the said decision, after referring earlier Division Bench decision reported in Government of Tamil Nadu represented
by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman 1992 (1) L.W. 326 have observed thus:-
Though there is nothing like stipulating a time in section 4 of the Act, but a reading of the section and the expedition with which the notice has to
be published, as contemplated in the Act, would make it clear that the Act prevents any delay which can take in its ambit a deep gap between the
date of publication of the notification and the date of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality.
Therefore, in order to prevent any undue delay and evil consequences on the land owners and also to keep the effect of the notice intact, a
reasonable time has to be read or presumed to a provision as has been done by this Court, with which we respectfully concur. There is no
substance in the contention raised by the Government Pleader.
In the earlier Division Bench decision, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) LW
326 it has been held that the delay between the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance
at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months and that if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. A reading of the
conclusion of the above referred Division Bench shows that the 4(1) notification in the official Gazette and the public notice of the substance at
convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months and if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned.
The other decision referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is a decision reported in Ponnaia v. Secretary of State AIR
1926 Mad. 1099. In that decision, a Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:-
If the provisions, of the land acquisition Act are not strictly complied with, but are made a cloak for attempting to obtain a transfer of an
indefeasible title under the guise of a public purpose, the proceedings do not operate towards the creation of a valid title to the land in
Government."" By pointing out the above decision, it is stated that since in our case the Land Acquisition Officer did not strictly comply with the
provisions, according to him, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The other decision relied on is Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, A.P. v. Mohd. Amri Khan, 1983 (1) S.C.C. 3. In that case, the case of
4(1) notification was published in the locality after expiry of 40 days from the date of such notification in the gazette. In the land acquisition (Andhra
Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 it is held that since the gist of 4(1) notification was published in the gazette after expiry of 40 days,
the said notification would be invalid.
Now I shall consider the decision cited by the learned Government Advocate. He referred to Senjeevanagar Medical and Health Employees
Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Others, . The following discussion and conclusion of Their Lordships is very relevant
for deciding the issue before us; hence the same is extracted hereunder:-
The Parliament enacted Amendment Act 68 of 1984 prescribing the procedural steps in publication of the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration
u/s 6 without prescribed time limit with consequences of non-compliance thereof and in Section 11A declaring that if the steps respectively
prescribed therein are not taken, the acquisition entails lapse. In other words, the Parliament evinces that neither simultaneous nor immediately local
publication of substance is insisted upon. But compliance thereof and publication in two newspapers are required to be done. The object is to put
the owner or interested person on notice of acquisition of the land for public purpose. In case of enquiry u/s 5A it should also be done and all the
steps should be taken within one year from the last of the dates of the publication of notification u/s 4(1). Otherwise the acquisition stands lapsed.
Even thereafter award should be made within two years from the date of the publication of Section 6 declaration. Publication of section 4(1)
notification in the official gazette, its substance in the locality and also publication of the notification in two local newspapers is envisaged but no
time limit for their compliance has been prescribed thereunder. If urgency power u/s 17(4) is not invoked, notice u/s 5A is required to be given to
the owner and then enquiry is conducted after giving opportunity to the owner or interested person. Thereafter, declaration should be published
within one year from last of the dates of the publication u/s 4(1). In other words, from September 24, 1984, all the prescribed procedural steps
should be done but without time schedule. The declaration should be published within one year. Maximum outer limit was prescribed. The central
act, 68 of 1984 and Validation Act were enacted under Entry 42 of list III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. By
operation of proviso to Article 254 of the constitution, the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is made operative and it has occupied the same field w.e.f.
September 24, 1984. In Gauri Shankar Gaur and Others, etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, this court surveyed the effect of the Amendment Act
vis-a-vis the U.P. Awas even Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and held in paragraph 39 and 40 that unless both the Acts are inconsistent and
cannot operate harmoniously, the State Act prevails over the Central Act but to the extent of repugnancy the State Act becomes void since it is not
fully consistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act. In that case, it was held that they were intended to act independently since the state law
was enacted under Entries 56 and 66 of List II (State List) while the Amendment Act was enacted under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List.
The rigour of 40 days thereby under the Validation Act got diffused w.e.f. September 24, 1984 since it is inconsistent with Amendment Act 68
of 1984. It would be seen that the Validation Act relates to acquisition of the land for providing house sites to the poor thereunder the urgency
power u/s 17(4) was invoked and possession was not taken. The notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 were simultaneously published. But
public notice of the substance of the notification was not given simultaneously. But for the Full Bench decision, law did not insist upon simultaneous
action which was an impossibility and concept of simultaneous action was judicial interpretation and its effect was diffused by Validation Act. It is
to remember that the acquisition was to provide housing accommodation to the poor. The State Government always exercise the power of
publishing the notification u/s 4(1) and the declaration u/s 6 for acquiring the properties in urban areas. The enquiry u/s 5A was not dispensed with.
The declaration u/s 6 was published only after the enquiry u/s 5A had been conducted as in the present case. The need, therefore, to make
simultaneous local notice of the substance was not the requirement of law and was so declared by this court in Deepak Pahwa''s case, AIR 1984
S.C. 172 and also several decisions of various Division Benches of the High Courts. The Full Bench judgment was primarily in relation to the lands
in rural areas to provide house sites to the poor. The full bench also did not notice the distinction since common question was argued and the main
concentration was only of the acquisitions for providing house sites to the poor. The same was repeated in Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, A.P. Vs. Mohd. Amri Khan and Others, , C.K. Narayana Chary''s cases (supra) closely followed by
heels of Mohd. Amri Khan''s case. Therefore, the Validation Act was not applicable to the acquisition made pursuant to the notification published
by the State Government in the State Gazette.
That apart, as facts disclose, the award was made on November 24, 1980 and the writ petition was filed on August 9, 1982. It is not in
dispute that compensation was deposited in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It is asserted by the appellant Society that possession of the land
was delivered to it and the land had been divided and allotted to its members for construction of houses and that construction of some houses had
been commenced by the date of writ petition was filed. It would be obvious that the question of division of the properties among its members and
allotment of the respective plots to them would arise only after the Land Acquisition Officer had taken possession of the acquired land and handed
it over to the appellant society. By operation of section 16 of the land stood vested in the state free from all encumbrances. In Satendra Prasad
Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the question arose whether notification u/s 4(1) and the declaration u/s 6 get lapsed if the award is
not made within two years as envisaged u/s 11A? A Bench of three Judges had held that once possession was taken and the land vested in the
Government, tide of the land so vested in the State is subject only to determination of compensation and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting
the title to the land statutorily vested in the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act. Only Section 48(1)
gives power to withdraw from acquisition that too before possession is taken. That question did not arise in this case. The property under
acquisition having been vested in the appellants, in the absence of any power under the Act to have the title of the appellants divested except by
exercise of the power u/s 48(1), valid title cannot be defeated. The exercise of the power to quash the notification u/s 4(1) and the declaration u/s
6 would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court under those circumstances would not have interfered with the acquisition and quashed the
notification and declaration u/s 4 and 6 respectively. Considered from either perspective, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in
allowing the writ appeal.
The other decision referred to by the learned Government Advocate is Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial
Development Investment Co. Pvt Ltd., and others, . He very much relied on the following conclusion arrived at in paragraphs 28 and 29 in that
decision:-
In Ram Chand and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , another Bench of three Judges of this Court had held that because of
inordinate delay in approaching the Court after entire process of acquisition was over pursuant to notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6, the
Court was not justified in quashing the same. Same view was reiterated in Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India and others, : Aflatoon and Others Vs.
Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, : Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, : H.D. Vora Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, , and Pt. Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar, 1980 (2) S.C.C. 83: AIR 1979 N.O.C. 191.
It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings
have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notification. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution to quash the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is
a material factor to be taken into consideration; before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in
the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the
learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.
By relying on the said conclusion of Their Lordships, it is contended that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or
laches.
14, Finally he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sundara Naicker Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, . The
learned Government Advocate has very much relied on the following conclusion from the said decision:-
The next contention is that the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act has not been published in the locality as required by sub-section (2) of Section 6
of the Act. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader has not been able to place before us records to show that the substance of the declaration
made u/s 6 of Act has been published in the locality. However, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the same has been done.
Even otherwise, we proceed on the basis that it has not been proved by the respondents that the substances of the declaration made u/s 6 is
published in convenient places; but, the failure to do so does vitiate the acquisition proceedings, because the supreme Court in State of Haryana
and Another Vs. Raghubir Dayal, has held that the requirement as to publication of the substance of the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act is
directory, but not mandatory, the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-
The purpose of the declaration u/s 6 is to render the land notified therein as that needed conclusively for public purpose. So, we are of the opinion
that the notification under sub section (1) should not be invalidated for non compliance of the notification u/s 6. It is true that the language in section
6(2) is in pari materia with section 4(1). The purpose of publication of the declaration is to give effect to the conclusiveness of the extent of the land
needed for the public purpose or for a company as made u/s 6(3) of the Act. Since there is an opportunity already given to the owner of the land
or persons having interest in the land to raise their objections during the enquiry u/s 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A
unless they show any grave prejudice caused to them in non- publication of the substance of the declaration u/s 6(1), the omission not publishing
the substance of the declaration u/s 6(1), in the locality would not render the declaration of section 6 invalid. We are not intending to say that the
officer should not comply with the requirement of law and it is their duty to do it. But their dereliction to do so per se does not render the
declaration u/s 6 illegal or invalid. Therefore, the word ""shall used in sub section (2) of section 6 should be construed to be only directory but not
mandatory. Moreover, in this case notice was issued to the respondent under sections 9 and 10 pursuant to which they appeared before the
L.A.O. and put forth their claim and the award has already been made. As stated earlier, since there is no inter se dispute as regards the
appointment, the Land Acquisition Officer had already made the reference u/s 30 and deposited the compensation in the Court of District Judge
along with the reference.
That being so, the contention does not carry the case of the petitioner/appellant any further.
In this decision, the Division Bench has held that non publication of substance of declaration in convenient places of locality does not vitiate the
acquisition proceedings. They also held that the publication of declaration u/s 6 is directory but not mandatory.
15, In Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Us Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) L.W. 326, the Division Bench of this Court
has held that the delay between the publication of section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient
places of the locality should not exceed two months and that if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. It is also clear from the decision
reported in Ponnaia v. Secretary of State, AIR 1926 Mad. 1099, that all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have to be strictly complied
with. There is no dispute on the above legal position. In so far as the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) LW 326 and The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. M. Natarajan, are
concerned Their Lordships have considered the delay between the publication of section 4(1) notification in the gazette and the public notice of the
substance at the convenient places of the locality. Taking note of the provisions, namely, section 4(1) they have fixed two months as outer limit
even though there is no such time limit prescribed in the Statute. In this context it is my duty to refer the decision of the Apex Court reported in
State of Haryana and Another Vs. Raghubir Dayal, . As stated earlier, now I am concerned with delay between the publication in official gazette
and the public notice of the substance at convenient place of the locality of 6 declaration. While considering declaration u/s 6 in the above said
decision. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 6 have concluded thus:-
Therefore, the word ''shall'' used in section 4(1) should be construed to be mandatory because the requirement of section 4(1) of the publication
of the notification in the gazette followed by their publication in the newspapers perhaps in some cases may not meet the needed purpose of notice
to the owner or person claiming interest in the land proposed to be acquired. For instance, in rural areas most agriculturists may not read even the
vernacular newspapers. Their fields are their world and work therein is their breadwinner. They would come to know only if the substance of the
notification is published (announced) in the village by best of drum. Therefore, publication of the substance of the notification of section 4(1) and in
the locality is mandatory but it is not the requirement of the law that it be done simultaneously with the publication in the gazette or newspapers.
Though there is a time gap of more than six months between the date of the notification u/s 4(1) in the state gazette and the date of the publication
of the substance of the notification in the locality, the delay by. itself does not render the notification u/s 4(1) published in the state gazette, invalid.
Though notice u/s 5A was issued to the respondent, he had not availed of the notice nor objected to the acquisition. The question emerges whether
the non-publication of the substance of the declaration u/s 6(1) equally be mandatory and its omission renders the declaration invalid? The purpose
of the declaration u/s 6 is to render the land notified therein as that needed conclusively for public purpose. So we are of the opinion that the
notification u/s 4(1) should not be invalidated for non-compliance of the notification u/s 6. It is true that language in Section 6(2) is in pan materia
with Section 4(1). The purpose of publication of the declaration is to give effect to the collusiveness of the extent of the land needed for the public
purpose or for a company as made u/s 6(3) of the Act. Since there is an opportunity already given to the owner of the land or persons having
interest in the land to raise their objections during the enquiry u/s 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A unless they show any
grave prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance of the declaration u/s 6(1), the omission to publish the substance of the
declaration u/s 6(1) in the locality would not render the declaration of Section 6 invalid. We are not intending to say that the officer should not
comply with the requirement of law and it is their duty to do it. But their dereliction u/s 6 illegal or invalid. Therefore, the word ""shall"" used in sub-
section (2) of the Section 6 should be construed to be only directory but not mandatory. Moreover, in this case, notice was issued to the
respondent under Sections 9 and 10 pursuant to which they appeared before the LAO and put forth their claim and the award has already been
made. As stated earlier, since there is an inter se dispute as regards the apportionment, the Land Acquisition Officer had already made the
reference u/s 30 and deposited the compensation in the Court of District Judge along with the reference.
The above said ratio has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sundara Naicker Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another,
. Their Lordships have held in the said decision that the word ""shall"" used in sub-section (2) of Section 6 should be construed only to be directory,
but not mandatory.
Apart from the law laid down by the above said two, decisions, it must be remembered that at the time of the publication of Section 6
Declaration in the official Gazette, there is no provision for publication of the same notification in the newspaper and in the locality. The same was
brought into force by way of an amendment Act, namely, The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. As per the amended provisions,
Notification u/s 6 was got published in two dailies, namely, ''The Hindu'' and ''Dhinathandhi'' dated 15.5.1985 and 13.5.1995 respectively. The
substance of the Declaration was also got published in the locality on 11.6.1985. Admittedly, the amendment Act received the assent of the
President on 24.9.1984. Hence the non-publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the two newspapers and the publication
of the substance of the afore-said declaration in the locality was made only subsequent to the publication of the same in the Gazette as per the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It is also explained in the counter affidavit that though the provisions of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 came into effect from 24.9.1984, the instructions in regard to the implementation of the various provisions of the
Amendment Act were issued by the Government only during January, 1985. It is also explained that on receipt of the instructions from the
Government, Declaration Notification u/s 6 of the Act was got published in the two Daily newspapers on 15.5.1985 and 13.5.1985 and the
substance of the Declaration Notification was also got published in the locality on 11.6.1985. In such circumstance, more particularly, the
explanation offered in the counter affidavit and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Raghubir
Dayal, as well as Division Bench of this Court in Sundara Naicker Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , in the absence of any prejudice
caused on the petitioners, the delay in publication of 6 Declaration in the daily newspapers and publication of substance in the locality may not be
accepted that it vitiated the acquisition proceedings.
Yet another circumstances to reject the contention of the case of the petitioners is the delay in approaching this Court by way of the present
writ petition. Admittedly 4(1) Notification was published in the gazette even in the month of November, 1982 and 5A enquiry was conducted in
January and April, 1983. It is not the petitioners'' case that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, 4(1)
Notification was published in the locality as well as in the local dailies. They also participated in the enquiry u/s 5A. The file produced by the
learned Government Advocate strengthened the above factual aspect. As already stated in W.Ps. 2074, 2075 of 1988 6 declaration was
published in the gazette on 14.11.84 and 19.12.84 respectively. The same was also published in the dailies as well as in the localities on 15.5.85,
13.5.85 and 11.6.85 in W.P. No.2074 of 88, and on 19.12.1984, 17.5.85 and 11.6.85 respectively in W.P. No.2075 of 88. Inspite of the above
aspects and having participated and aware of the acquisition proceedings, they have approached this Court only on 2.3.88. As a matter of fact, the
award was passed in both the cases on 10.6.87. The records produced by the learned Government Advocate also disclosed that the petitioners
were served with notices for the award enquiry and they also participated in the said enquiry. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that after
passing the Award on 10.6.87, the entire extent of lands covered under these writ petitions have been handed over to the requisitioning body even
on 6.1.88 i.e., two months prior to the filing of the writ petitions. In the light of the above factual position I am of the view that the observation of
Their Lordships in Senjeevanagar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Others, , more
particularly para 12 (which I have already extracted in the earlier part of my judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. It is settled law
that the people should be diligent in approaching this Court without undue delay and that when the land acquisition proceedings is made for a
public purpose, it has to be interfered with only if both parties are diligent in approaching this Court without any delay. Same view has been
reiterated in Manghi Radhakrishnan Nydoo and 6 others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others, 1994 WLR. 577 as well as in Thulasi Ammal v.
State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others, 1994 WLR 584.
In the light of what is stated above, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, consequently both the
writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.