The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Scheme and The State of Tamil Nadu and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development vs S. Jayakumar, S. Balakumar, S. Sundararajan and The Subordinate Judge

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.01.1997 made in WP No.

9619 of 1987 in and by which the learned Single Judge quashed the acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition as prayed for.

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for appellants. Respondents 1 to 3 though duly served notice in this appeal, they have not

chosen to engage a counsel.

Respondents 1 to 3 herein/writ petitioners have filed the writ petition questioning the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Housing and Urban

Development Department. The challenge relates to 4(1) notification and the declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, etc. Official

respondents have also filed a detailed counter affidavit highlighting their stand.

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, after narrating the factual details as stated in the affidavit and the counter affidavit, in the

concluding paragraph, after stating that "" the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act has not been properly conducted"", quashed the entire acquisition

proceedings and allowed the writ petition.

As stated earlier, though the petitioners have raised several contentions, likewise the respondents have also raised objections in their counter

affidavit, the impugned order does not disclose the reason for quashing the acquisition proceedings except stating that the enquiry u/s 5-A of the

Act has not been properly conducted. On going through the particulars furnished in the counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge, we are

unable to accept the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. In a matter like this, when the details are available, it is but proper to advert the factual

details with reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made therein and arrive at a conclusion one way or other. Such

recourse has not been followed while quashing the entire acquisition proceedings.

In such circumstances, in view of the materials available in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that the writ petition has to be re-heard. On

this ground, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.1997 is set aside. Inasmuch as the writ petition is of the year 1987, the

Office is directed to list the W.P. No. 9619 of 1987 before the appropriate Court within a period of two weeks from today for final hearing.

7.The writ appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs.