1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.8881 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sethumuthu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Housing Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ramanathapurak Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram Housing Unit, Ramanathapuram- 623 501. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the entire acquisition proceedings has lapsed in so far as the petitioner is concerned in view of notice dated 07.03.2003 and the award dated 28.03.2003 in his award No.Na.Ka.A1/12674/89, issued by the second respondent in respect of Ramanathapuram Taluk, Sakkarakottai Village, Survey Number 130/2A1A and etc., an extent of 19.44.5. hectares acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board after the expiry of two years in violation of the Section 11(A) of the Act. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R ********** This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the entire acquisition proceedings as lapsed in so far as the petitioner is concerned in view of notice dated 07.03.2003 and the award, dated 28.03.2003 in his award No.Na.Ka.A1/12674/89, issued by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the second respondent in respect of Ramanathapuram Taluk, Sakkarakottai Village, Survey Number 130/2A1A and etc., to an extent of 19.44.5 hectares acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board, after the expiry of two years in violation of the Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894(for short "the Act"). 2. Heard Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award No.Na.Ka.A1/12674/89, dated 28.03.2003. The only basis on which the award of the year 2003 is challenged is that the ratio of the judgment, dated 21.011.2006 rendered in W.A.No.408 of 2005 will enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well, as the acquisition proceedings is one and the same. 5. Though the contention of the petitioner that the award is bad for the reasons contained in the judgment in W.A.No.408 of 2005 is tenable in law, this Court is not inclined to grant such relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons. (i) The award is passed in the year 2003 (i.e) on 28.03.2003. The judgment in the W.A.No.408 of 2005, in respect of the same acquisition proceedings was rendered in the year 2006 (i.e) on 21.11.2006. The Writ Petition however is filed after more than four years thereafter. (ii) The petitioner has not explained the reason for the inordinate and unexplained delay of eight years, in challenging the award proceedings, which is of the year 2003. (iii) It is not as if the petitioner is unaware of the acquisition proceedings. On 07.03.2003 he received the notice issued by the second respondent. The petitioner after such inordinate delay is challenging the award on merits stating that it is contrary to the provisions of the Act which cannot be countenanced by this Court. (iv) On a reading of the Division Bench judgment referred to supra, it is clear that the petitioner in that case had earlier challenged the declaration under Section 6 of Act unsuccessfully and thereafter challenged the award relying upon the provision of 11(A) of the Act, which is not the case in the present Writ Petition. (v) In the present case, the petitioner has not lifted his little finger against the acquisition proceedings and after a long period of eight years, he is challenging the award. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Therefore, the benefit of the Division Bench judgment will not enure to the petitioner for the reason of delay and latches. 6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority,Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 held in a case of land acquisition that if a person approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after long delay, the Court will not come to his aid. 7. For the above said reasons, the Writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Housing Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ramanathapurak Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ramanathapuram Housing Unit, Ramanathapuram- 623 501. +One CC to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, SR.No.26927 +One cc to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.27010 pm rl/6c – 29.8.2011 W.P.(MD)No.8881 of 2011 09.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/