IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Writ Appeal No.2186 of 2000 1. Govindaraj Naicker 2. Kanniappa Naicker 3. Ramalinga Naicker 4. Kanniappa Naicker 5. Mari Naicker .. Appellants Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner and Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. 3. The Special Tahsildar (LA) I Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. .. Respondents ----- Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.8.2000 made in W.P.No.18969 of 1999. ----- For Appellants : Mr.R.T.Subramaniam For Respondent 1 & 3 : Mr.K.Ilango, Spl.G.P. For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.Chelladurai ----- J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The unsuccessful writ petitioners have preferred the above writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 9.8.2000 made in W.P.No.18969 of 1999.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ appeal are as under:
(a) The petitioners are the legal heirs of Varaddappa Naicker and his brother Shanmuga Naicker, who inherited the property of their mother Kaliammal after her death and now cultivating the lands of an extent of 4.43 acres in S.Nos.533, 522, 532 and 528 at No.73, Maduravoyal Village, Thiruvallur District. The respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire lands, including the lands of the petitioners, for the formation of Maduravoyal Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.761, Housing and Urban Development, dated 30.8.1989. The declaration under Section 6 in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Housing and Urban Development, dated 20.9.1990 was published in the Gazette on 21.9.1990.
(b) According to the petitioners, the award enquiry notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 were not served on them and no award enquiry was conducted. Even though Shanmuga Naicker was alive at the time of award enquiry, the enquiry was not conducted in his presence. Further, the award has not been passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and that the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served on their fathers, who have dead, by registered post on 18.11.1999. Hence, they filed the writ petition for Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the consequential notices and to quash the same.
(c) The learned single Judge, holding that even though the notices of award were not served properly on the petitioners, merely on the basis of said irregularities, the acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered with, dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to refer the said award to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants challenges the impugned acquisition proceedings on the only ground that the respondents had not issued notice to the petitioners and therefore, the acquisition proceedings has to be interfered with.
4. Admittedly, the writ petition has been filed nearly after nine years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the official Gazette. With respect to the maintainability of the writ petition virtually filed after long passage of time, the Apex Court has been consistently taking the view that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief and that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings.
5. The Court is expected to take care in not entertaining the writ petition on the ground of delay, where the land is need for a public purpose, as it would cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the Housing Scheme is framed and also in having planned development of the area.
6. 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 loath to quash the notifications. The discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. Failure on the part of the land owner to move the Court soon after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made would be fatal.
7. The persons who approach the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, they cannot sit on the fence and allow the State to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notifications on the grounds which were available to them at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics.
8. Concededly, the writ petition has been filed after 9 years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and there is no good reason explaining the delay in moving the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
9. With regard to the service of notice, it is obvious that the respondents have issued notice in the name of the petitioners’ fathers’, as per the revenue records. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalakshmi Ammal [AIR 1996 SC 866], the Apex Court has held that certain irregularities in the service of notice of award on the petitioners, while passing the award, cannot be a basis for interference of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, we do not see any irregularity in the service of notice.
For the reasons aforementioned, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.19088 of 2000 is also dismissed.
kpl
To
1. The Commissioner & Secretary to Government
Housing & Urban Development Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. The Special Tahsildar (LA) I
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme
Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035.