The State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Kailasam and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above appeals have been filed against the common order dated 16.11.1996 made in W.P. Nos. 9483 to to 9485

and 9566 of 1986. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government, the respondents have filed W.P. Nos. 9483 to

9485 and 9566 of 1986.

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants.

Pursuant to rule nisi, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit setting out their defence. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is seen

from the impugned order and the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners that the mandatory provisions laid down by the respondents

under the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, have not been complied with by the respondents. It is clear from paragraph 6 of the order of the

learned single Judge. Thereafter, the learned single Judge, noting the fact that the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

opposed the claim of the counsel for the petitioner, arrived at a conclusion in paragraph 7, which reads as follows:

I have gone through the material available on the record and I am thoroughly convinced that mandatory provisions laid down under the Act has not

been complied with by the respondents and the matter is liable to be remanded to the respondents for fresh disposal.

After saying so, the learned single Judge has allowed all the writ petitions and set aside the acquisition proceedings and remanded back the same

to the first respondent viz., Government for complying with the mandatory provisions required under the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Additional Government Pleader, though in the affidavit the writ petitioners have pointed out certain violations and non compliance of the provisions,

according to him, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, all those points have been met by furnishing required details.

In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is but proper on the part of the learned single Judge to consider the issues separately with

reference to the stand taken in the counter affidavit as well as the records produced before him and give a specific finding one way or other. Such

recourse has not been followed and without assigning any reason, except stating that the mandatory provisions have not been complied with, the

learned single Judge has set aside the acquisition proceedings and remitted the matter to the Government. We are unable to accept the said

conclusion.

Inasmuch as all factual details and legal submissions are not adverted to in the order and of the fact that the respondents/writ petitioners though

duly served from this Court, have not been chosen to appear before us, after setting aside the common order of the learned single Judge, we remit

the matter to the learned single Judge for disposal of the writ petitions on merits. Since the writ petitions are of the year 1986, the office is directed

to list all the writ petitions before the concerned Judge dealing with the subject within a period of two weeks from today.

The writ appeals are allowed on the above terms. No costs.