K.S. Ramaswamy Asari (Died) and 5 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderp.d. dinakaran, j.1. in the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the declaration under section 6 of the land acquisition act made in g.o.ms. no. 387, housing and urban development dated 12.03.1986 and published in the tamil nadu government gazette (extraordinary) part ii section 2 dated 17.03.1986 and quash the same in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.2. at the outset, the learned government advocate pointed out that the averments stated in the very affidavit that the petitioners are joint purchaser of the property, which is subject matter of the above acquisition proceedings under sale deed dated 09.09.1985, which is much later than the section 4(1) notification dated 14.03.1983.3. mr. m, selvanayagam, learned government advocate relied upon the decision of the apex court reported in ajay krishnan shinghal v. union of india, : air1996sc2677 and contends that the writ petition being filed by the subsequent purchaser is liable to be dismissed and therefore, the writ petitioner can only claim compensation in respect of the acquired land.4. mr. venkatraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no convincing answer to the above legal submissions made by the learned government advocate.5. in the above circumstances, i feel that there is no sufficient cause to interfere with the impugned land acquisition proceedings. therefore the writ petition fails.6. in the result, the writ petition is dismissed. however, there will be no orders as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made in G.O.Ms. No. 387, Housing and Urban Development dated 12.03.1986 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part II Section 2 dated 17.03.1986 and quash the same in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.

2. At the outset, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the averments stated in the very affidavit that the petitioners are joint purchaser of the property, which is subject matter of the above acquisition proceedings under Sale Deed dated 09.09.1985, which is much later than the Section 4(1) Notification dated 14.03.1983.

3. Mr. M, Selvanayagam, learned Government Advocate relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ajay Krishnan Shinghal v. Union of India, : AIR1996SC2677 and contends that the writ petition being filed by the subsequent purchaser is liable to be dismissed and therefore, the writ petitioner can only claim compensation in respect of the acquired land.

4. Mr. Venkatraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no convincing answer to the above legal submissions made by the learned Government Advocate.

5. In the above circumstances, I feel that there is no sufficient cause to interfere with the impugned land acquisition proceedings. Therefore the writ petition fails.

6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.