Manghi Radhakrishna Nydoo and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.—By consent of all parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.

The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O.R. No. 36, Housing, dated 19-2-1975, and Section 6 Declaration in G.O. Ms. No. 594, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21-3-1978 in so far as the Petitioners'' lands are concerned viz., 2-10 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 239/2 and 3 (part), situate in Kottivakkam village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai M.G.R. District, in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983 dated 27-8-1991, and quash the same.

The Petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of deceased Manghi Allaswami Naydoo, who is the original owner of the lands in question. The Petitioners are brothers and sisters and are also joint patta owners in respect of the lands now acquired by the Respondents. According to the Petitioners, their father died in the year 1966 intestate leaving behind the Petitioners and their mother. Their mother also subsequently died in the year 1972 intestate leaving behind the Petitioners. The Respondents published a Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act on 26-3-1975. Section 6 Declaration was subsequently published on 23-3-1978. Though their parents, who are the original owners, died during 1966 and 1972 respectively, the Respondents have not given any notice to the Petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased parents, at anytime and consequently, they could not participate in the enquiry conducted u/s 5(A) of the Act. They were not given any opportunity to make out their objections before the 2nd Respondent. The substance of the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act has not been published within the time required. Therefore, this Court in a connected proceedings quashed the Section 4(1) Notification on the ground that the delay of 14 months in publishing the Section 4(1) Notification has not been properly explained by the Respondents by a common judgment dated 27-8-1991 in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., by S. Govindaswami, J.

According to the Petitioners, the Respondents have not followed the mandatory provisions and the requirements under the Act and therefore, the purpose of the claim itself was not served. Moreover, most of the lands sought to be acquired have been deleted by the Government itself. When the Petitioners approached the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority during October, 1992, for the purpose of putting up construction, they were advised to approach the Housing Board to get clearance certificate as the lands in question are under acquisition proceedings. Only from the Housing Board the Petitioners came to know about the land acquisition proceedings. Thus, the Petitioners have filed the above writ petition for the relief mentioned supra.

The State Government filed a counter affidavit. According to them, the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act for an extent of 97.01 acres comprised in Survey No. 238/4-A, etc., in Kottivakkam village was approved by the State Government in G.O. Rt. No. 36, Housing, dated 19-2-1975 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26-3-1975. For the purpose of convenience, the above extent of 97.01 acres was divided into four blocks. The land in Survey No. 239/2B measuring an extent of 1.03 acres is registered in the name of Dhanalakshmi Naidu and Survey No. 239/2C measuring an extent of 1.03 acres stands registered in the name of Mangi Allaswami Naidu as per the revenue records. Section 5(A) notices dated 22-4-1975 were issued to them through the Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the 2nd Respondent requesting them to appear for the 5-A enquiry on 19-5-1975. The above notices were served by affixure on the land owner''s lands by the Special Revenue Inspector on 30-4-1975, as they are non-residents of the village and their whereabouts are not known. The enquiry u/s 5A of the Act was conducted on 19-5-1975 after observing the requisite formalities. The other land owners presented their representation before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Schemes, Saidapet, Madras-15, who was the Land Acquisition Officer, in which they requested exclusion of a portion of the land adjoining their residential buildings which lies in village site. An erratum to the extent in Survey No. 238/4 was proposed, according to which the extent notified for acquisition was 2.96 acres in Survey No. 238/4 part. The erratum to the Notification notifying the extent in Survey No. 238/4A part as 2.96 acres was approved in Government Memo No. 20772/Al/75-12, Housing, dated 27-11-1976 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 18-12-1976.

According to the averments made in the counter, the requisitioning body, i.e., the impleaded 3rd Respondent, was consulted on the objections of the other land owners. The Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by his letter, dated 16-2-1978, stated that according to the policy decision of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, all vacant lands should be acquired and that therefore, it is not desirable to exclude any portion and that the land owners might be informed that they might apply for developed plots after the lands are acquired and developed. An endorsement was also given to the land owners communicating the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Special Deputy Collector''s Rc. No. 2365/72-B dated 17-2-1978. The opinion of the Housing Board was intimated to the land owners at the subsequent enquiry on 17-2-1978. During the enquiry also the land owners have again represented that an extent of 0.26 acre at the backside of their residential buildings should not be acquired. The opinion of the Housing Board on the objection of the land owners was examined and recommended to over-rule the objections in Special Deputy Collector''s proceedings dated 22-2-1978. The declaration for an extent of 5.82 acres comprised in Block I was approved in G.O. Ms. No. 594, Housing, dated 21-3-1978 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 23-3-1978 at page 7. The land in Survey No. 239/2B with an extent of 1.03 acres was included in the above Declaration in the total extent of 5.82 acres.

The Respondents would further aver in the counter affidavit that notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued to Dhanalakshmi Naidu and Mangi Allaswami Naidu by registered post with acknowledgment due to their last known address, but the notices were returned undelivered with the postal endorsement ''Not found''. So, the notices were got served by affixure on the lands under acquisition. The award enquiry was conducted on 23-8-1980 and the award was passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Unit II, who is the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 1 of 1983 dated 26-2-1983, after observing the formalities. Notices u/s 12(2) of the Act were also issued to the land owners. The same were got served by affixure on 11-3-1983 on the lands as they are non-resident pattadars. The Award was kept under Revenue Deposit on 17-8-1984. Possession was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 26-3-1983. After a lapse of ten years from the date of passing the Award, the Petitioners have moved this Court and filed the writ petition.

Regarding the reference to W.P. No. 4105 of 1983 etc., it is submitted by the Respondents that the Petitioners have filed the above writ petitions and got stay from this Court on 24-5-1983 after passing the award dated 26-2-1983 and service of Section 12(2) notices to the Petitioners. The order obtained in those writ petitions is not relevant to the present case as the possession of the lands in respect of the above three writ petitions was taken but not handed over to the Housing Board due to the stay orders passed by this Court. The present writ petition has been filed after a period of ten years after the award and this Court granted interim stay of taking possession alone. The present writ petition has been filed after handing over possession of the lands to the Housing Board on 26-3-1983.

The Respondents have denied the allegation of the Petitioners that they came to know about the acquisition proceedings only during October, 1992, which is an utter falsehood and only to cover up the delay in approaching this Court such an allegation is made. As already stated, the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., dated 27-8-1991 rendered by S. Govindaswami, J., is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand because the substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published in the locality and other places on 30-4-1975 and notices were sent to Dhanalakshmi Naidu and Allaswami Naidu as per the revenue records and they were served by affixure.

As stated above, the possession of the subject matter land has been taken by the Housing Board on 26-3-1983. Thereafter, the Housing Board has put up fences on all the four sides of the land. Since there was general ban by the Government in respect of house construction to preserve water, no further action was taken by the Housing Board. By G.O. Ms. No. 403 dated 3-6-1993, the Government have relaxed the above ban and permitted the Housing Board to proceed further. Thereafter, the Housing Board approached the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and paid Rs. 1,99,410/- towards development charges and other fees and the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority has approved the same on 23-6-1993. Hence, the present writ petition filed about 18 years after Section 4(1) Notification and ten years after the award is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

The Petitioners filed W.M.P. No. 30864 of 1993 to raise additional grounds. The additional grounds raised are:

a) Since the original owner died long prior to Section 4(1) Notification, the Respondents have not taken any diligent steps to find out the legal heirs of the deceased land owner and they have made the Notification u/s 4(1) in the name of a dead person. Further, notices were also sent to the dead persons. This shows the utter carelessness on the part of the Respondents, which vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings.

b) In view of the earlier direction made by this Court in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., dated 27-81991 in respect of other lands arising out of the same Notification, no purpose would be served if the Petitioners'' land atone is acquired which is a very small extent comparatively with the lands which are excluded. It is to be noticed that the purpose of acquisition till the entire acquisition proceedings are completed including the time consumed by the proceedings pending before the Court of Law.

c) There has been an inordinate and unexplained delay of three years between the date of publication of the Notification u/s 4(1) and the enquiry u/s 5 of the Act.

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Besant Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras-20, has filed W.M.P. No. 28011 of 1993 to implead him as a party Respondent in the writ petition. According to the Housing Board, in pursuance of the Award, possession of the lands, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, was taken over by the 2nd Respondent and the same was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 26-3-1983. After taking over possession of the lands, the Housing Board has prepared a lay-out for residential plots and necessary proposal has been submitted to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for approval and the approval was also obtained. In fact, the Housing Board has issued orders of allotment to various individuals. At this stage, the writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners and interim order has been obtained. After obtaining interim order, the Petitioners, under the guise of the said order, have encroached upon the land and put up a small hut to accommodate their watchman. Therefore, the Executive Engineer prayed that he may be impleaded as party Respondent in the main writ petition. By consent of parties, this petition was ordered by me on 30-9-1993, and the Executive Engineer was impleaded as 3rd Respondent in the main writ petition. The 3rd Respondent has also filed W.M.P. No. 28020 of 1993 to vacate the interim stay granted on 30-3-1993 in W.M.P. No. 9394 of 1993.

Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners strenuously contended that the entire land acquisition proceedings are to be quashed in view of the non-observance of the procedure contemplated under the Act. According to him, at no point of time the Petitioners were made aware of the proceedings of the Respondents by following the procedure contemplated under the Act. He placed very strong reliance on the judgment of S. Govindaswami, J., in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., dated 27-8-1991, which were filed by other land owners challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay in publishing the substance of the Notification u/s 4(1).

S. Govindaswami, J., while allowing the writ petitions quashed the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act by reason of the long delay in causing public notice of the substance of Section 4(1) Notification. In the concluding portion of his judgment, the learned Judge has observed as follows:

Learned Counsel for writ Petitioners contended that even though Section 4(1) notification was published on 26-3-1975 and errara to the same was published on 15-12-1976, there was a long delay in causing the public notice of the substance of the notification to be published in the date of publishing of the errata viz., 15-12-1976 is considered there is a long delay of about fourteen months in publishing the same on 2-2-1978, which is not at all explained. It is well settled that by reason of the long delay in causing the public notice of the substance of Section 4(1) Notification to be published, the link to the acquisition proceedings get disrupted. A Division Bench of this Court has held that in such cases, the acquisition proceedings will be vitiated. For the fore-going reasonings, the notifications issued u/s 4(1) in these cases are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the other contentions with regard to delay in passing Section 6 declaration and the award.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the notifications u/s 4(1) are quashed in so far as the Petitioners are concerned. There will be no order as to costs.

At this stage, learned Government Advocate appearing for 1st Respondent, submits that the Petitioners have received the award amounts and, in view of the notifications having been quashed, they must be directed to refund the amounts forthwith. There shall, accordingly, be a direction to the Petitioner.

From the above judgment of S. Govindaswami, J., three things are clear

(a) There was long delay in causing the public notice of the substance of Section 4(1) Notification to be published from the date of publishing of the errata dated 15-12-1976 (Delay of about 14 months, which was not at all explained in that case).

(b) Section 4(1) Notification was quashed in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.

(c) In view of the notifications having been quashed, the Petitioners (owners) were directed to receive (Sic- return) back the award amounts.

I am of the view that the judgment of S. Govindaswami, J., referred to by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, will not be of any assistance to the Petitioners. S. Govindaswami, J., has allowed those writ petitions on the short ground that the 4(1) Notification was published on 26-3-1975 and erratum was published on 15-12-1976 and the gist was published in the locality on 2-2-1978. The learned Judge has observed that by reason of long delay in causing the public notice of the substance, the link to the acquisition proceedings got disrupted. Hence, the learned Judge quashed the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. In my opinion, reliance on the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the Notification u/s 4(l) of the Act was published on 26.3.1975 and that substance was published in the locality on 30-4-1975, i.e., well within two months period prescribed by the Division Bench in the decision reported in 1992 Writ Law Reporter 332. Hence, as earlier stated, the judgment of S. Govindaswami, J., is not of any help to the Petitioners herein.

This apart, the Petitioners in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., have filed the writ petitions in the year 1983 after the passing of Award No. l of 1983 dated 26-2-1983. The present writ petitions have been filed after 18 years from Section 4(l) Notification and after 10 years from the date of the award, which, in my view, is not maintainable and cannot be entertained at all. The orders obtained in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983, etc., as put forth by the Petitioners, are not relevant to this Court as the possession of the land in respect of the writ Petitioners was taken but not handed over to the Housing Board due to the stay orders. The Petitioners herein have moved this Court only during 1993 after an inordinate delay of 18 years and 10 years respectively after the 4(1) Notification and the Award, and obtained stay of taking possession alone. The fact remains that possession was handed over to the Housing Board on 26-3-1983 itself and that the Housing Board, after taking possession, has prepared a lay-out for residential plots and necessary proposal has been submitted to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for approval and also obtained approval from them. In fact, the Housing Board has issued orders of allotment to various individuals. At this stage, the Petitioners have filed the writ petition and obtained interim orders. Thus, the stay order granted by this Court has become infructuous since possession has already been taken ten years before. I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the main writ petition and I do not find any specific averment that the Petitioners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.

The judgment of S. Govindaswami, J., in W.P. No. 4105 of 1983 etc., relied on by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for yet another reason, because the substance of Section 4(l) Notification was published in the locality and other places on 30-4-1975 and there was no delay between Section 4(1) Notification and the publication of the substance in the locality. The learned Special Government Pleader, at the time of hearing produced all the relevant records. I have also permitted the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners to peruse the same. I also perused the same.

Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is also not right in saying that the Petitioners have not been given notice at any point of time. As per the records, notices have been sent to Dhanalakshmi Naidu and Manghi Allaswami Naidu and they were served by affixure. Hence, the contention of Mr. R. Gandhi is not acceptable. The authorities are expected or under obligation to send notices only to the person whose names have been entered in the Revenue Records. As stated above, Section 4(l) Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 26-3-1975 and the gist was published in the locality and other places on 30-4-1975. Hence, there was no delay in publishing the substance in the locality. It is also borne out from the records that after giving notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the Award was passed on 26-2-1983 and Section 12(2) notice was also served by affixure on 11-3-1983. The Award amount was kept under Revenue Deposit on 17-8-1984.

Mr. P. Sathasivam, learned Special Government Pleader, while answering to the contention of Mr. R. Gandhi regarding notices, invited my attention to the fact that the land in Survey No. 239/2B measuring an extent of 1.03 acres, is registered in the name of Dhanalakshmi Naidu and the land in Survey No. 239/2C measuring an extent of 1.03 acres stands registered in the name of Manghi Allaswami Naidu as per the revenue records. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader contends that in the Notification the names of Dhanalakshmi Naidu and Manghi Allaswami Naidu were duly mentioned as found in the revenue records. As stated earlier, the substance of Section 4(l) Notification was duly published in the locality before conducting enquiry u/s 5(A) of the Act. In spite of the above facts, nobody has come forward to object the acquisition proceedings or inform the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the ownership, etc. Hence, the notices were sent in the name of the owners as per the revenue records. Since the notices were returned unserved, the Village Administrative Officer affixed the notices on the last known address in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

Mr. P. Sathasivam, learned Special Government Pleader is right in his above submission. The authorities are expected to serve the notice only on the persons whose names are registered or found in the revenue records. Hence, the service of notice by affixure, as contemplated under the Act and Rules, has been properly done on the land owners as found in the revenue records. The Award also has been passed on 26-2-1983 in Award No. l of 1983 and on 26-3-1983 itself possession was handed over to the Housing Board. After taking possession the Housing Board viz., the Requisitioning Body, fenced the lands under acquisition on all sides. The time limit fixed under the Act for passing the Award is applicable only after the introduction of the Amendment Act, 1984. Hence, it is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the Award passed on 26-2-1983 is not fatal to the acquisition proceedings.

Mr. P. Sathasivam, learned Special Government Pleader then contended that the writ petition filed in the year 1993 challenging the notification of the year 1973 and the Section 6 declaration of the year 1978 and the Award of the year 1983, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. As already stated, possession was taken by the Housing Board on 26-3-1983. The Housing Board has also put up afence on all sides and after series of correspondence, the Government have relaxed the ban imposed in that area for construction of houses. After getting the ban relaxed, the Housing Board applied for approval of lay-out with the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and paid a sum of Rs. 1,99,410/- towards development charges and other fees. The lay-out was approved on 23-6-1993. Hence, I fully agree with the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader, that the writ petition filed after 18 years from the date of 4(1) Notification after 15 years from the date of Section 6 Declaration and after more than 10 years from the date of Award, is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as well.

The contention of Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that the mandatory provision enshrined in the Act u/s 45 has not been followed and hence the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Section 45 of the Act contemplates four modes of service viz.,

i) On the individual.

ii) Service on adult male

iii) Affixure.

iv) If all the above becomes a failure, then under direction/orders from the Collector/Magistrate, the notice should be sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, In the instant case as clearly stated by the State in its counter-affidavit, the notices were sent to the persons concerned as per the revenue records and since they were returned unserved, they were served by affixure, which is one of the modes contemplated u/s 45 of the Act. Hence, this contention of Mr. R. Gandhi also fails.

It is also not disputed that the Petitioners'' parents were non-residents of the village where the lands are situate. Hence, resort to mode of service by affixure was adopted. I, therefore, hold that the service of notice by affixure is in order and the same cannot be questioned.

The learned Special Government Pleader relied on certain decisions in support of his contention that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The first, decision relied on by him is reported in Aflatoon and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 11 and 23 held as follows:

Nor do we think that the Petitioners in the writ petitions should be allowed to raise this plea in view of their conduct in not challenging the validity of the notification even after the publication of the declaration u/s 6 in 1966. Of the two writ petitions, one is filed by one of the Appellants. There was apparently no reason why the writ Petitioners should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court for challenging the validity of the notification issued in 1959 on the ground that the particulars of the public purpose were not specified. A valid notification u/s 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification u/s 4 and the declaration u/s 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the Petitioner....

The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even before the Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force, but there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi, under the Act before the Master Plan was ready (see the decision in Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Others, . In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area other than a development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in Section 42(3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the power to acquire the land u/s 15 was delegated by the Central Government to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. We have already held that the Appellants and the writ Petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification u/s 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceedings for acquisition by issuing the notification u/s 4 of the Act as Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act gives that power only to the Central Government relates primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi was not authorised by the Central Government to issue the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, since the Appellants and the writ Petitioners are precluded by their laches and acquiescence from questioning the notification, the contention must, in any event, be negatived and we do so.

The next decision relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader is reported in State of Mysore and Others Vs. V.K. Kangan and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the validity of the Notification u/s 4 of the Act for want of public notice should be challenged within a reasonable time of its publication and unreasonable delay in filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution disentitles the Petitioner to the relief asked for.

The third decision relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader is reported in The Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 1993 Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 327. Here again, the Supreme Court rejected the petition as not maintainable on the ground of laches. In that case, the notification u/s 4(l) of the Act was issued on 3-11-1959 and the Declaration u/s 6 was issued during 1968-69 and notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act was issued on 27-12-1972. The notification was not challenged till 1973 and there was delay in challenging. A plea was raised before the Supreme Court that neither the Award has been made nor possession of land has been taken. The Supreme Court has rejected the said plea holding that the same is not maintainable. The Supreme Court has further rejected the explanation offered by the Petitioners as not valid for the delay.

The next decision relied on by Mr. P. Sathasivam, learned Special Government Pleader is reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran W.A. Nos. 28 to 31 and 37 to 40 of 1992 - 1993 (2) L.W., 352 wherein a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon''ble Chief Justice K.A. Swami and Hon''ble Mr. Justice T. Somasundaram, by order dated 25-8-1993, has also taken a similar view while setting aside the order of a learned single judge in holding that the Petitioners in that case were not guilty of laches in approaching this Court. The delay of three years in that case was found guilty of laches and as such, the Bench held that persons like the Petitioners therein are disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The observation made by the Bench in paragraph 17 may also be usefully referred to in this context. It runs thus:

It may be pointed out that land acquisition is made for a public purpose. If it has to be interfered with, the party has to be diligent and has to approach the Court without undue delay.

Thus, it is seen from the Supreme Court rulings and also the Division Bench rulings of this Court referred to supra, that people should be diligent in approaching this Court without undue delay and that when the land acquisition is made for a public purpose, it has to be interfered with only if the parties are diligent in approaching the Court without any delay.

Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has cited a few decisions reported in K. Shanmugha Sundara Nadar Vs. The Special Tahsildar I and Others, , A. Vembuli Naicker Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Muthu v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu 1986 W.L.R. 391; Jankibai Tukaram Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, ; Ram Chand Vs. Union of India and Others, ; Muthuswami v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 (1) M.L.J., 217; Chellammal v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) 1992 2 L.W., L. Krishna v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 T.L.N.J., 144 : 1991 2 L.W. 150 (S.N) K.V. Krishna Iyer Vs. The State of Madras and Another, and Sree Vengeeswarar Alagarperumal Devasthanam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, in support of his contention referred to above. Since reliance was placed by me to reject the case of the Petitioners on rulings of the Apex Court, I have not adverted to the above decisions as I feel it is not necessary in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to supra.

None of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners merits any acceptance.

For the fore-going reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

No costs.