J.Sathya and Three Others Vs State of Tn Represented by

Urban Development dated 04.3.1986 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 19.3.1986 in Part II Section 2 (Supplement) and the consequent award passed by the third respondent in reference No.2/98 (D-394/83) dated 10.9.1998 and in relation to the acquisition of 1 ground and 1,255 sq.ft. in T.S.No.16/1, Block 38 of Puliyur Village, Kodambakkam, and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ravi Raja For R1 & R3 : Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP For R2 : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapaul Standing Counsel

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The writ petition has been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and more particularly the Declaration dated 04.3.1986 made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 19.3.1986.

¶25

When the matter came up for hearing on 10.2.2025, this Court passed the following order :

¶26

"This writ petition has been filed challenging

¶27

the acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has lapsed.

¶28

2. A counter has been filed by the respondents.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/5

¶31

WP.No.231 of 2000

¶32

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not able to trace the bundle and hence, sought for time.

¶33

4. Post finally on 17.2.2025. In the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall reconstruct the bundle and place a copy before this Court."

¶34

Pursuant to the said order, the case bundle has been reconstructed and placed before this Court. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 11A of the said Act.

¶35

Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter wherein they took a stand that the original owner of the property had dealt with the property after the acquisition proceedings were initiated, that apart, for the same relief, the earlier writ petitions filed by the land owners were dismissed, that the notice for award inquiry under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the said Act was served on the land owners and it was also published in the locality, which was earlier challenged, that later, awards were passed in the year 1998 and that while so, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the entire proceedings lapsed under Section 11A of the said Act.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/5

¶38

WP.No.231 of 2000

¶39