IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 20.4.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.7682 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
1.K.R.Saminathan,
2.Jaya,
3.P.Dhanalakshmi. ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
by its Commissioner and Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme,
Coimbatore.
4.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
5.The Executive Engineer-cum-
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore-641 012. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the lands in S.No.66, S.No.66/1, acres 3.88 cents, Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Central Act I of 1894 in G.O.Ms.1274 dated 18.8.1983 to quash as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional and direct the 1st and 5th respondents to exclude the lands in S.No.66, S.No.66/1, acres 3.88 cents, Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Central Act I of 1894 and G.O.Ms.1274 dated 18.8.1983.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari,
for Mr.P.Ananda Kumar.
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam,
Government Advocate,
for R1 to R3.
Mr.M.Dhandapani,
Special Government Pleader,
for Mr.A.Vijayakumar,
for R4 and R5
-----
O R D E R
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the first respondent pertaining to the lands in S.Nos.66 and S.No.66/1, to an extent of 3 Acres and 88 Cents, situate at Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore acquired by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Central Act I of 1894 in G.O.Ms.1274 dated 18.8.1983, to quash as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional and direct the 1st and 5th respondents to exclude the above lands from the acquisition.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed on 21.3.2011 challenging the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Survey Nos.66 and 66/1 to an extent of 3 Acres and 88 Cents situate at Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore. The Section 4(1) Notification has been issued in G.O.Ms.1274 dated 18.8.1983.
3. Sri V.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter alia contended as follows:-
(i) The first petitioner is the brother of the petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners are the erstwhile owners of the above said properties. The petitioners were not aware of Land Acquisition proceedings. Therefore, on the belief that the properties rightfully belonged to them, petitioners sold the properties to various third parties during the years 1990 to 1997 after forming layout sites by name, “Sashti Nagar”. In February, 2000, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and his subordinates authorities demolished the house structures built on the land in S.Nos.66 and 66/1 and preferred a criminal complaint against the first petitioner, which forced the first petitioner to file W.P.No.4640 of 2000 in March 2000. It is only at that point of time, petitioners 1 to 3 came to know that the land in S.Nos.66 and 66/1 was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings of the year 1983.
(ii) The first petitioner in para 5 of the present affidavit states that with great difficulty, he got copies of the Notification dated 18.8.1983 issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration dated 5.9.1985 in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. On going through the above proceedings, the petitioners came to know that in the 4(1) Notification, the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed and the names of the petitioners did not find place in the 4(1) Notification and hence the acquisition is bad as it is contrary to law.
(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners refers para 6 of the affidavit and states that no statutory enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act was conducted and hence, there is breach of the procedure prescribed.
(iv) The first petitioner fairly concedes that the land in Survey No.67 measuring to an extent of 2.40 Acres belonging to the first petitioner was acquired and compensation was received. So also Survey No.66/3 measuring 0.59 cents was acquired.
(v) Learned counsel for the petitioners points out para 7 of the affidavit and states that the petitioners have no knowledge of acquisition proceedings in respect of land in Survey Nos.66 and 66/1 and compensation has not been deposited so far. Hence, the proceedings are bad.
(vi) It is stated by the first petitioner that he got copies of notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act from his purchasers and from that he came to understand that award enquiry notice was issued on 29.4.1986 calling upon him to appear for enquiry on 20.5.1986, 21.5.1986 and 22.5.1986 in respect of Survey No.66/1 for an extent of 3 Acres and 88 Cents. It is also averred that the petitioners 2 and 3 were issued notice on 3.9.1986 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act to appear on 30.9.1986 for enquiry in respect of acquisition proceedings in respect of S.No.66/1 in an extent of 1.00 Acre.
(vii) Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that Form 16 maintained by the third respondent shows that notice dated 24.4.1986 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act was served by way of affixure on 5.5.1986. Therefore, the revenue officials played fraud upon the petitioners 2 and 3. Proper notice was not sent or served to the owners. It is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated. It is a categorical statement of the first petitioner that no notice was affixed or served on the petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act (i.e.) relating to award enquiry. It is, therefore, contended that Section 4(1) Notification is not as per law. was not properly issued. The enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was not conducted as per procedure prescribed in law. The non service of notice vitiates the proceedings, under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
(viii) The discrepancy in the dates of the notice allegedly issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners 2 and 3 will establish that the entire proceedings as a force. The authorities have played fraud on the and have indulged in tampering of records.
On the above premise, the writ petition is filed challenging the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as above.
4. The respondents were put on notice. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate. The respondents 4 and 5 are represented by Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appears for the respondents 4 and 5.
5. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a typedset of papers which has been served on the petitioners as well. The documents which are relevant for the case have been enclosed in the typedset of papers which includes the copy of Award No.2 of 1987 dated 6.4.1987 and the two orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10081 of 2007 dated 16.3.2007 and W.P.Nos.4640 and 10340 of 2000 dated 24.10.2008.
6. The writ petition is opposed as not maintainable on the following grounds:-
(i) Petitioners have received the notices issued in the land acquisition proceedings and participated in the proceedings from stage to stage and therefore, it is false to state that they have no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition filed challenging the acquisition proceedings is unjustified and a deliberate attempt to interfere with the rights of the 4th and 5th respondents.
(ii) Suppression of facts to the knowledge of the petitioners and
(iii) Inordinate delay and laches.
7. It is further contended that the pleadings in each of the writ petitions differ from each other, thereby exposing the fallacious nature of the petitioners’ claim in challenging the acquisition proceedings. Petitioners have, to their knowledge, participated in the acquisition proceedings and have received compensation. Therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings after an enormous delay of more than 27 years. Even from the date of award (i.e.) on 6.4.1987, the delay is 24 years.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (S) Chennai vs. – M.Meiyappan & others (S) (Civil Appeal No.1757 of 2002) reported in 2010(11) Scale 411, wherein the Apex Court held in paragraphs 14 and 22, as follows:-
“14. At the outset, we must state that on the facts of this case, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. In our opinion, the writ petition must fail on the short ground that the writ petition had been filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector. It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is such negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner to assert his right which, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party, the High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner.”
“22. In the present case, as already stated, the respondents did not furnish any explanation as to why it took them 16 years to challenge the acquisition of their lands, when admittedly they were aware of the acquisition of their lands and had in fact participated in these proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector. We have no hesitation in holding that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition of the respondents after 16 years of the passing of the award. The High Court should have dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 17, notwithstanding its earlier decision in W.P.No.2244 of 1991, which decision, according to the appellant, was otherwise distinquishable.”
(ii) G.V.Krishna Setty and 7 others vs. – Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2008(4) CTC 657, wherein the First Bench of this Court held in paragraph 7 as follows:-
“7. In the background of these facts, it is difficult for this Court to entertain the prayer of the appellants for re-conveyance. It may be noted in this connection that Section 48-B of the said Act does not give the appellants any right to claim re-conveyance. The said Section merely empowers the Government to re-convey, provided the conditions specified in the said Section are fulfilled. In the instant case, pursuant to the Court’s order on the Writ Petition filed by the appellants, the Secretary to Government has considered the matter and disposed of the representation of the appellants by a reasoned order, giving particulars thereof. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to go behind this order. Learned counsel for the appellants is trying to assert that the particulars given in the said order are factually incorrect. It is difficult for this Court to reopen the said proceeding which was concluded by Award No.1 of 1985 and the taking over of the possession of the land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 9.4.1986. So after a gap of 22 years, it is not prudent for a Writ Court to enter into such factual controversy. Learned counsel for the Housing Board also submits that the land of the appellants has been utilised in the manner in which it has been stated in the order of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 11.2.2004.”
These decisions are relied upon to plead that the writ petition must be dismissed at the threshold in view of inordinate delay and laches as above.
9. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, it will be relevant to refer to the affidavit filed by the first petitioner in March 2000 in W.P.No.4640 of 2000 as certain averments made thereon will make the issue clear and establish petitioners’ knowledge of acquisition proceedings.
10. The cause of action for filing the Writ Petition No.4640 of 2000 in the year 2000 as has been stated in that affidavit is that in February, 2000, the Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and his subordinates proceeded to demolish the house structures built in S.No.66/1 and they have also preferred a complaint to the police, as the petitioner (first petitioner herein), the erstwhile owner of the said land, sold the property to the third parties from the years 1990 to 1997. The Writ Petition No.4640 of 2000 was filed restraining the respondents from launching any prosecution or criminal complaints in respect of acquisition proceedings in respect of S.F.No.66/1 situate at Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District. The mandamus specifically is, not to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the first petitioner’s land in S.No.66/1 situate at Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore Taluk or take action for prosecution. Paragraphs 4 and 9 of the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.4640 of 2000 which are very relevant are extracted as such:-
“4. I submit that I was served with a notice for an award enquiry in respect of the said acquisition in the year 1987. I appeared in the enquiry through counsel and made submissions to the effect that the land may not be acquired as I was not possessed of any other land. I also pleaded that the compensation offered was totally inadequate, since I was advised to cover the contingency of the lands being acquired despite my objections. It is pertinent to submit that two draft awards seems to have been passed on 6.4.1987 in award numbers L.A.No.86/83 and 86/82A. The former covers SF No.66/1 and the latter covers S.F.No.67/1. However though I have received compensation under protest in respect of S.F.No.67/1, I have not been offered to compensation nor did I receive compensation in respect of lands S.F.No.66/1.”
“9. I submit that the third respondent has no power or authority to lodge a criminal prosecution against me in the matter. The only prosecution envisages under the Land Acquisition Act is under Section 45 thereof, which provides for criminal penalty for obstruction of Land Acquisition proceedings or tempering of marks or boundaries made or put up by the Land Acquisition Officials. I have not committed any such offence. Therefore, the third respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to lodge a criminal prosecution against me in the matter. In fact the compensation not having been tendered or deposited for the lands acquired and the award not having been communicated so far my lands in S.F.No.66/1 of Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore Taluk & District. I am entitled to claim exemption of the lands from acquisition proceedings in view of the officials’ non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. In any event, there can no prosecution lodged against me by or at the instance of the third respondent.”
11. From the above affidavit, it is clear that the first petitioner accepts that he was served with the notice in the acquisition proceedings even as on 1987. He states that he appeared through counsel and made submission that his lands should not be acquired and further pleaded that compensation was totally inadequate. Petitioner also refers to Award No.2 of 1987 dated 6.4.1987 in L.A.Nos.86/83 and 86/82A. The affidavit as above clearly states that Award No.2 of 1987 dated 6.4.1987 (i.e.) L.A.No.86/83 is referable to S.F.No.66/1 which is the subject matter of this case. The statement in para 9 of the affidavit also states that Award has not been communicated in respect of S.F.No.66/1 and the compensation has not been tendered or deposited. This establishes knowledge of acquisition proceedings long before.
12. In the light of the statement made in the affidavit filed in W.P.No.4640 of 2000 it is useful to refer to the Award No.2 of 1987 dated 6.4.1987 and the relevant portion from page Nos.16 to 18 relating to the acquisition as it will throw light on the nature of proceedings and it reads as follows:-
“S.F.No.66/1 Extent 3.88 acres.
The following are the notified persons to this land.
1. K.R.Swaminathan.
2. Jaya @ Krishnammal.
3. Dhanalakshmi.
The above land is under possession and enjoyment of the above three persons as per partition deed No.5091 dated 11.11.81 as their ancestral property. The extent of land owner by them are as follows:
1. K.R.Swaminathan 1.88 acres 2. Tmt.Jaya @ Krishnammal 1.00 " 3. Tmt.Dhanalakshmi 1.00 " ------------ Total 3.88 acres ------------
Award enquiry notices were issued to all the above land owners. Thiru K.R.Swaminathan appeared for enquiry through his counsel. N.V.Nagasubramaniam, B.Sc., B.L., Coimbatore and filed a written statement. He has demanded for an enhanced compensation of Rs.5000/- and 15% percent interest from the date of 4(1) notification. He has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, his request for enhanced compensation is rejected. Since the land has not been taken possession till the date of award, his request for the payment of interest, from the date of 4(1) notification is also rejected.
Notices could not be served to the land owners Jaya @ Krishnammal and Dhanalakshmi at the first instance, as their whereabouts were not known previously. After ascertaining their whereabouts, fresh notices were issued to them for appearing for the enquiry on 30.9.86. They have acknowledged the receipt of the notice. Tmt.Jaya @ Krishnammal appeared for enquiry and has stated that an extent of 1.00 acre out of 3.88 in S.No.66/1 is owned by her as per partition deed 5031/81 of Sub Registrar, Gandhipuram and the land is in her enjoyment. She has also presented a written statement. She has demanded for an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- per cent. She has also not produced any documentary evidence in support of her claim. She has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the ownership of the land. Tmt.Dhanalakshmi did not appear for the enquiry even after receiving notices. As Tmt.Dhanalakshmi failed to appear for the enquiry to prove her right over the land and to confirm the claims of one Thiru K.R.Swaminathan and Tmt.Jaya alias Krishnammal the alienable right of all the claimants could not be ascertained. Therefore, the compensation worked out for their lands is ordered to be deposited in the civil courts under section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.”
13. In the Award No.2 of 1987 at internal page 19, the acquisition in respect of other properties, viz., S.F.Nos.66/3 and 67/1 are also referred to and in that award enquiry, as in the case of S.F.No.66/1, the first petitioner appeared through his advocate Mr.N.V.Nagasubramaniam of Coimbatore and filed a written statement. In both the cases, it is clearly stated that the counsel for the first petitioner appeared, filed a written statement and demanded enhanced compensation from the date of 4(1) Notification. Their claim for enhanced compensation was rejected.
14. Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, it has been clearly stated that at the first instance, notice could not be properly served, but, after ascertaining the whereabouts, fresh notice was issued on 30.9.1986. Both the petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to have been received the notice. The second petitioner, Tmt.Jaya alias Krishnammal appeared for enquiry and also presented a written statement. She sought for enhanced compensation. The third petitioner, Tmt.Dhanalakshmi, however, did not appear for enquiry in spite of receiving notice.
15. In the Award No.2 of 1987 it has been stated that the compensation has been worked out and has been deposited in the civil court. The affidavit filed in W.P.No.4640 of 2000 in March 2000 and the statement of facts in the award, clearly goes to show that the petitioners do have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and that they have participated in the award enquiry. The 4(1) Notification, which is relatable to Survey Nos.66 and 67 are that of the petitioners. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners had knowledge of acquisition proceedings and participated in the award enquiry. The details of extent of land and the amount of enhanced compensation that they claimed for the lands sought to be acquired is part of record. The first petitioner herein was represented by an advocate. Therefore, the first petitioner’s plea of no knowledge of acquisition proceedings in respect of S.F.No.66/1 appears to be an absolute false statement. The statement made in para 7 of the affidavit filed in the present writ petition stating that the petitioners have no knowledge of acquisition of land in S.F.No.66/1 is false to the knowledge of the petitioners in view of the facts as set out above. Hence, the petitioners having suffered an award on contest cannot challenge the Section 4(1) notification.
16. The plea of the petitioners’ counsel that there is some discrepancy in the notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as the second and the third petitioners are concerned and that fraud has been committed by the revenue officials is totally misconceived. It appears to be an after thought to save themselves from wrongful acts of selling the acquired lands after taking part in Award proceedings and after receiving the compensation in one case.
17. This Court does not find any major infirmity in the proceedings as the notice has been served in the award enquiry. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned it is not in dispute that he received the notice dated 29.4.1986 to appear on 20.5.1986, 21.5.1986 and 22.5.1986. He has appeared through his counsel and that is not disputed. Insofar as the third petitioner is concerned, Form 16 only shows that there was service of notice on 5.5.1986 by affixure. In the Award it is stated that after ascertaining the whereabouts, the third petitioner was served with a notice for the enquiry to be heard on 30.9.1986. But she did not appear for award enquiry on 30.9.1986. However, the award clearly states that Tmt.Jaya alias Krishnammal, the second petitioner herein was served and she appeared and made her objection on 30.9.1986. It goes to show that all possible steps have been taken by the authorities to serve the land owners. It is too late in the day for the third petitioner to plead after 24 years of passing of the award that no notice was served in the award enquiry proceedings. It appears to be an afterthought.
18. The delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in challenging the 4(1) Notification in the present writ petition (i.e.) after more than 27 years is bad for the following reasons. All the three petitioners have sold the acquired lands in favour of the third parties. The purchasers of those properties filed W.P.No.10340 of 2000 for the following relief:-
“W.P.No.10340/2000: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to proceed further and to exclude the land of the petitioners in Sree Ram Nagar S.F.No.66/1, Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore covered under the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.906 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 05.09.1985.”
19. The W.P.No.10340 of 2000 was taken up along with W.P.No.4640 of 2000 filed by the first petitioner to restrain the third respondent from proceeding from the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the very same S.No.66/1 and also to restrain respondents from prosecuting the first petitioner for having sold the land to the third parties. Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed on 24.10.2008. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the common order is self explanatory as to the state of affairs and they are extracted hereunder for clarity.
“4. A perusal of the writ petition in W.P.No.4640 of 2000 shows that the petitioner had not challenged the Acquisition proceedings and only sought for stay of prosecution. In fact, the prayer in the writ petition itself shows that he had already sold the land pending the Acquisition proceedings. There was also an award in the impugned order referred to above.
5. The original land owner, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings, which had taken place as early as 1985, cannot file a writ petition in 2000 and took advantage of the judgment rendered by this Court dated 03.07.1997 made in W.P.No.5483 of 1988. In any event, a perusal of the affidavit does not show that he is serious of challenging the acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, he had already sold the property to third parties including the petitioners in W.P.No.10340 of 2000. Hence, the writ petition, which is laid before this court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.4640 of 2000 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is dismissed.
6. The subsequent purchasers, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.10340 of 2000 will have to blame themselves for having purchased the said property, which is already the subject matter of the land acquisition and possession has been taken over by the Housing Board. Under these circumstances, the subsequent purchasers have no right to question the Acquisition proceedings as the proceedings have already culminated in a final award. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.”
20. Having received the above order on 13.11.2008, petitioners did not choose to challenge the acquisition proceedings even then. It is only after more than 2 years and four months, after receipt of copy of the order as above, the present writ petition has been filed. Even thereafter, it is obvious that the first petitioner was sleeping over the matter inspite of knowledge. He has chosen to keep quite for one or other reason best known to the first petitioner.
21. The subsequent purchasers left in quandary filed W.P.No.10081 of 2007 and by order dated 16.3.2007, the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.12.2006 made by the petitioners/subsequent purchasers for the purpose of reconveying the land acquired. The Government has rejected such request on 16.11.2007. It is only thereafter the petitioners 1 to 3 woke up from the slumber and have made a request in February, 2011, which is before filing the writ petition, seeking reconveyance of the land.
22. From the narration of the facts as above, it is apparent that the petitioners were fully aware of the acquisition proceedings right from the inception and have taken the present plea challenging the acquisition after more than 27 years. It is only to stall the action taken by the respondents board to develop the property acquired. It is at the behest of the subsequent purchasers, as apparently the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property after the award was passed in year 1987 and compensation received in part.
23. This Court is unable to accept any one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the writ petition challenging the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is bad on account of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, more particularly, when the petitioners have full knowledge of acquisition proceedings and have participated in the proceedings. The subsequent pleading in the present writ petition that the petitioners have no knowledge of acquisition proceedings in respect of S.F.No.66/1 is an afterthought and deliberate attempt to misguide the court.
24. The first petitioner has, to his knowledge, sworn to a false affidavit stating that he has no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. The first petitioner has filed this writ petition after such a long period of time without any locus standi to do so only shows his mala fide intention to interfere and meddle with the property, the possession of which has already been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 28.9.1988 by the Special Tahsildar which is revealed by the document annexed in the typedset of papers submitted by the respondents 4 and 5.
25. Even in the affidavit filed in the present writ petition, there is not a whisper with regard to inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ petition. When the first petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2000, namely, W.P.No.4640 of 2000, he has clearly stated about the acquisition proceedings. From that date it is now more than 11 years. That delay has also not been explained in the affidavit.
26. The first petitioner therefore, has come to this Court with a malafide intention, challenging the 4(1) Notification after participating in the acquisition proceedings including the award proceedings. Such conduct of the first petitioner who is the brother of the petitioners 2 and 3 deserves to be seriously viewed by this Court, more particularly, in view of the earlier common order dated 24.10.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4640 and 10340 of 2000. The Writ Petition challenging the 4(1) Notification after delay of more than 27 years does not merit consideration. The plea taken by the petitioners’ counsel is totally erroneous and untenable in law and therefore, rejected.
27. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
28. In conduct of the first petitioner interfering and meddling with the property of the respondents 4 and 5 as above, his conduct of selling the property to the third parties, filing one writ after another writ petition to stall the respondents Housing Board from utilising the property establishes the petitioners intention as not bona fide. Since the first petitioner, who is the brother of the petitioners 2 and 3, has specific knowledge of all the proceedings and his action amounts to deliberate and intentional defiance of law, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai-104 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ts
To
1.The Commissioner and Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme,
Coimbatore.
4.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
5.The Executive Engineer-cum-
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore 641 012