The Government of Tamil Nadu vs P. Mohan and V. Jagannathan

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 02.08.1996 in and

by which the learned Judge quashed the acquisition proceedings and remitted the matter to the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Tamil Nadu

Housing Board, Madras-83, for fresh disposal according to law and after giving opportunity to the writ petitioners.

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 2087 of 2

003.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has brought to our notice that in the absence of pointing out violation of

mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or Rules, the learned single Judge committed an error in allowing both the writ petitions merely

stating that ""the mandatory provisions laid under the Act have not been complied with by the second respondent."" He also submitted that the

details furnished in the counter affidavit amply show that all the provisions of the Act, including the notice under Rule 3 and 10 of the Act have been

served on the land owner and the same have been complied with. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the learned Judge has

not adverted to the details furnished in the counter affidavit and there is no case warranting quashing the acquisition proceedings and remitted the

matter to the Special Deputy Collector (LA). On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner in W.A. No. 2087

of 2003, supported the order of the learned Judge.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials.

Though it is claimed that the writ petitioners have raised several contentions, a perusal of the order of the learned Judge does not show the

points raised in the writ petitions were adverted to. Likewise, though violations have been stated in the affidavit, in the counter affidavit necessary

materials have been furnished by the Government and the Land Acquisition Officer highlighting the compliance of the provisions of the Act and

Rules. In such circumstances and in a matter like this it is but proper to refer the points raised and the stand taken in the counter and thereafter

arrive a conclusion one way or other based on the materials placed, we are satisfied that such recourse has not been followed while quashing the

acquisition proceedings. On this ground, the common order of the learned Judge is liable to be interfered. Since the issues raised by both parties

have not been considered, we have no other option except to remit the matter to the learned Judge for disposal. Accordingly, the common order

dated 02.08.1996 made in W.P.Nos.2086 and 2087 of 2003, is set aside. Inasmuch as the writ petitions are of the year 1996, Office is directed

to list the same for final hearing before the concerned learned Judge dealing with the subject within a period of two weeks. Both the writ appeals

are allowed on the above terms. No costs.