1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 626, Housing dated 05.04.1978 in publishing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981 in issuing Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on the file of the first respondent and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.05.1981 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding with acquisition of the Petitioner's land comprised in G.S.No. 236, Kavundampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk measuring 3.27 acres.
2. The brief facts of the case is stated as follows:-
The petitioner society purchased an extent of 3.27 acres comprised in G.S.No.236, Kavandampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1968 with a view to locate a Housing Colony for the members of the Society. The petitioner society moved the State and Central authorities for the formation and approval of a Housing Colony for its members and all preliminary arrangements had been made a preparation of lay out and getting subsidy from the Central Government.
3. Further, by a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act made in G.O.Ms.No. 626 Housing dated 05.04.1978, the first respondent proposed to acquire the said lands for alleged public purpose of providing house accommodation under North Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme. The petitioner contends that the said notification under Section 4(1) was not published in the locality or in the convenient place prescribed under the rules.
4. It is further contended that even though the petitioner has submitted objections, the second respondent failed to conduct the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act giving personal hearing to the petitioner inspite of specific request. The petitioner also contends that Rule 3(b) was not complied with before passing a Declaration under Section 6 in G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981. That apart the respondents also failed to comply with Section 11(A) of the Act. On these grounds the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned acquisition proceedings.
5. Eventhough the writ petition was filed in the year 1986, the respondents have not chosen to file the counter affidavit till date.
6. The learned counsel appearing on, behalf of the petitioner contends that failure to consider the objection of the petitioner Co-operative Society that the land belong to it has to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings, particularly when the petitioner society purchased the land for their house purpose and the impugned acquisition proceedings also intend for alleged purpose to provide house accommodation. The learned counsel for the petition relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ghaziabad Shermani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd and another v. State of U.P. and others etc., : 1SCR203 which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of M. Srinivasan, J (as he then was) and Abdul Wahab, J reported in The Southern Railways Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Erode v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Madras and another, : 1996(1)CTC395 .
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contents that the impugned acquisition proceedings also vitiates for non- compliance of Rule 3(b) and relies upon the Decision reported State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, : 1SCR369 and a decision of this Court reported in Ponnusamy, C v. Government of Tamil Nadu, : 1997(1)CTC212 . He further contends that the petitioner have filed their objection to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and participated during the enquiry under Section 5A; but the respondents have not forwarded the objections to the requestioning authority, obtained the remarks and furnished the same to the writ petitioner and held a further enquiry before passing Declaration under Section 6 in G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that since Section 11(A) was inserted on 24.09.1984 the respondents ought to have passed the award on or before 23.09.1986. In the Instant case the respondents have not passed any award till date. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse.
9. Mr. Selvanayagam, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly concedes that till date no award has been passed as contemplated under Section 11(A) of the Act.
10. In view of the admission of the learned Government Advocate, I do not think it is necessary to go into the other aspects of the case. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner even though petitioners are entitled to rely upon the decision referred to above, in view of the admitted facts that no award has been passed till date, and section 11(A) has not been complied with, I am obliged to hold that the entire proceedings with the acquisition of the land initiated under the Government Orders in the above writ petition namely:-
(i) G.O.Ms.No. 626, Housing dated 05.04.1978
(ii) G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981 shall lapse.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However,there will be no order as to costs.