ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.

2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the W.P. No.2074 of 88 that S.F. No.1474 measuring 4.81 acres of Sanaperatti village, Karur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, belongs to the petitioners. For neighbourhood scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Notification under section 4(1) of the Central Act I of 1894 was issued by the second respondent in G.O.Ms. No.996 dated 4.11.1982. The same was published in the Government Gazette on 24.11.82. The second respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act and it was published in the Government Gazette on 14.11.1984. It is stated that Section 6 of the Act was amended by the Central Act 68/84. Under Section 6(2) the declaration under section 6 must be published in Newspapers and also in the village. According to them, the amending Act received the assent of the President on 5.9.1987 and hence non-publication in the Newspapers and in the village vitiates the declaration under section 6. It is learnt that long after the publication in the gazette, it was published in the newspapers on 13.5.1985. Even though the Award is said to have been passed on 10.6.1987, nobody was given notice to the Award. With these averments, they prayed for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings.

3. Petitioner in W.P. No.2075 of 88 was the owner of Part of S.F. 1407 of Sanapiratti Village, Karur Taluk. The said land was notified for acquisition. Here also identical contentions have been made by the petitioner as that of the petitioners in W.P. No.2074 of 88. Pending disposal of the writ petition, after the death of the sole petitioner, his legal representatives, namely, petitioners 2 to 7 were impleaded.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit only in W.P. No.2074 of 88 wherein it is stated that at the instance of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tiruchi Housing Unit, Tiruchirapalli, acquisition of 99.59 acres of dry lands in Senappiratti Village was taken up under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Draft Notification under section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the lands of the petitioners was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.996 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 4.11.82. Thereafter, enquiry under section 5A of the said Act was duly conducted on 28.1.83 and 28.4.83. There were objections to the acquisition from the land owners. They were gone into in detail. However, the acquisition sought for was for a bona fide public purpose, the Government overruled the objection and declared the acquisition under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 15.10.84. The said declaration was published in the Gazette on 14.11.84. As per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the declaration notification under section 6 was got published in the two News Dailies. Accordingly the same was published in 'The Hindu' and 'Dina Thanthi' dated 15.5.85 and 13.5.85 respectively. The substance of the declaration was also got published in the locality on 11.6.85. After obtaining necessary approval and publication of the Direction notification under section 7 of the said Act, award enquiry was conducted on 2.4.86 and 29.9.86 in the manner prescribed in the Act. After due completion of the Award enquiry, an award was pronounced on 10.6.87 in Award No.2/87. It is also stated that the entire extent of the lands in S.No.1474 have been handed over to the requisitioning body on 6.1.88. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.R. Alagar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V. Rangaraj, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

6. Even though several contentions have been raised in both the writ petitions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners confined his argument by pointing out only one violation, namely, there was a long unexplained delay between the publication of section 6 declaration in the Government Gazette and publication in daily Newspapers as well as in the locality. According to him, in view of the long delay the entire acquisition proceedings from the stage of 6 declaration are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, after taking me through the records contended that the paper publication and publication in the locality were effected within the reasonable time from the date of Gazette publication in so far as 6 declaration is concerned. In any event, according to him, the delay in publishing the gist of the 6 declaration in the locality would not affect the acquisition proceedings since it is not a mandatory but it is only a directory.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. In view of the limited argument, namely, with reference to publication of 6 Declaration, it is unnecessary for me to refer other factual aspects. The lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for a neighbourhood scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In respect of the lands covered under W.P. No.2074 of 88, 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette on 24.11.1982, 6 Declaration was published in the Gazette on 14.11.1984, published in "The Hindu" daily on 15.5.85 and in Tamil "Daily Thanthi" on 13.5.85 and finally in the locality on 11.6.85. Like wise, in respect of the lands overed in W.P. No.2075 of 88, 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette on 4.11.82, 6 declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 19.12.84, (the draft direction under section 7 of the land acquisition Act was approved by the Government in their letter dated 25.4.85) and was published in the "Hindu" and "Dinamalar" simultaneously on 17.5.85 and finally the substance of the Notification was published in the locality on 11.6.85. The above particulars show that there was delay in publication of 6 declaration in the dailies as well as in the localities. Prior to the amendment Act, 6 declaration has to be published only in the Government Gazette. However, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Principal Act) was amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. According to the provisions of the amended Act, every declaration under section 6 has to be published in two Daily Newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. The amended section 6(2) is as follows:-

6 (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land in situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected."

9. A reading of the above said provision shows that whenever Government make a declaration, the same has to be published in the Official Gazette, in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. Apart from the above formalities, the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Further, such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. In the light of the above provisions, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of long delay in publication of section 6 declaration in the gazette, the daily newspapers and in the locality, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Mr. Alagar, learned senior counsel in respect of the above aspect, has very much relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home Department v. M. Natarajan, . Their Lordships in the said decision, after

referring earlier Division Bench decision reported in Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) L.W. 326 have observed thus:-

"Though there is nothing like stipulating a time in section 4 of the Act, but a reading of the section and the expedition with which the notice has to be published, as contemplated in the Act, would make it clear that the Act prevents any delay which can take in its ambit a deep gap between the date of publication of the notification and the date of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality. Therefore, in order to prevent any undue delay and evil consequences on the land owners and also to keep the effect of the notice intact, a reasonable time has to be read or presumed to a provision as has been done by this Court, with which we respectfully concur. There is no substance in the contention raised by the Government Pleader."

In the earlier Division Bench decision, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) LW 326 it has been held that the delay between the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months and that if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. A reading of the conclusion of the above referred Division Bench shows that the 4(1) notification in the official Gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months and if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned.

10. The other decision referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is a decision reported in Ponnaia v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1099. In that decision, a Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:-

"If the provisions, of the land acquisition Act are not strictly complied with, but are made a cloak for attempting to obtain a transfer of an indefeasible title under the guise of a public purpose, the proceedings do not operate towards the creation of a valid title to the land in Government." By pointing out the above decision, it is stated that since in our case the Land Acquisition Officer did not strictly comply with the provisions, according to him, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. The other decision relied on is Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, A.P. v. Mohd. Amri Khan, 1983 (1) S.C.C. 3. In that case, the case of 4(1) notification was published in the locality after expiry of 40 days from the date of such notification in the gazette. In the land acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 it is held that since the gist of 4(1) notification was published in the gazette after expiry of 40 days, the said notification would be invalid.

12. Now I shall consider the decision cited by the learned Government Advocate. He referred to Sanjeevakumar M. and H.E. Co- operative Housing Society v. Mohd. A. Wahab, . The following

discussion and conclusion of Their Lordships is very relevant for deciding the issue before us; hence the same is extracted hereunder:-

"10. The Parliament enacted Amendment Act 68 of 1984 prescribing the procedural steps in publication of the notification under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 without prescribed time limit with consequences of non-compliance thereof and in Section 11A declaring that if the steps respectively prescribed therein are not taken, the acquisition entails lapse. In other words, the Parliament evinces that neither simultaneous nor immediately local publication of substance is insisted upon. But compliance thereof and publication in two newspapers are required to be done. The object is to put the owner or interested person on notice of acquisition of the land for public purpose. In case of enquiry under Section 5A it should also be done and all the steps should be taken within one year from the last of the dates of the publication of notification under section 4(1). Otherwise the acquisition stands lapsed. Even thereafter award should be made within two years from the date of the publication of Section 6 declaration. Publication of section 4(1) notification in the official gazette, its substance in the locality and also publication of the notification in two local newspapers is envisaged but no time limit for their compliance has been prescribed thereunder. If urgency power under section 17(4) is not invoked, notice under section 5A is required to be given to the owner and then enquiry is conducted after giving opportunity to the owner or interested person. Thereafter, declaration should be published within one year from last of the dates of the publication under section 4(1). In other words, from September 24, 1984, all the prescribed procedural steps should be done but without time schedule. The declaration should be published within one year. Maximum outer limit was prescribed. The central act, 68 of 1984 and Validation Act were enacted under Entry 42 of list III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. By operation of proviso to Article 254 of the constitution, the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is made operative and it has occupied the same field w.e.f. September 24, 1984. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. this court surveyed the effect of the Amendment

Act vis-a-vis the U.P. Awas even Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and held in paragraph 39 and 40 that unless both the Acts are inconsistent and cannot operate harmoniously, the State Act prevails over the Central Act but to the extent of repugnancy the State Act becomes void since it is not fully consistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act. In that case, it was held that they were intended to act independently since the state law was enacted under Entries 56 and 66 of List II (State List) while the Amendment Act was enacted under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List.

11. The rigour of 40 days thereby under the Validation Act got diffused w.e.f. September 24, 1984 since it is inconsistent with Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It would be seen that the Validation Act relates to acquisition of the land for providing house sites to the poor thereunder the urgency power under section 17(4) was invoked and possession was not taken. The notification under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 were simultaneously published. But public notice of the substance of the notification was not given simultaneously. But for the Full Bench decision, law did not insist upon simultaneous action which was an impossibility and concept of simultaneous action was judicial interpretation and its effect was diffused by Validation Act. It is to remember that the acquisition was to provide housing accommodation to the poor. The State Government always exercise the power of publishing the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 for acquiring the properties in urban areas. The enquiry under Section 5A was not dispensed with. The declaration under section 6 was published only after the enquiry under section 5A had been conducted as in the present case. The need, therefore, to make simultaneous local notice of the substance was not the requirement of law and was so declared by this court in Deepak Pahwa's case, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 172 and also several decisions of various Division Benches of the High Courts. The Full Bench judgment was primarily in relation to the lands in rural areas to provide house sites to the poor. The full bench also did not notice the distinction since common question was argued and the main concentration was only of the acquisitions for providing house sites to the poor. The same was repeated in Mohd. Amri Khan's case, , C.K. Narayana Chary's cases (supra) closely followed by heels of Mohd. Amri Khan's case. Therefore, the Validation Act was not applicable to the acquisition made pursuant to the notification published by the State Government in the State Gazette.

12. That apart, as facts disclose, the award was made on November 24, 1980 and the writ petition was filed on August 9, 1982. It is not in dispute that compensation was deposited in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It is asserted by the appellant Society that possession of the land was delivered to it and the land had been divided and allotted to its members for construction of houses and that construction of some houses had been commenced by the date of writ petition was filed. It would be obvious that the question of division of the properties among its members and allotment of the respective plots to them would arise only after the Land Acquisition Officer had taken possession of the acquired land and handed it over to the appellant society. By operation of section 16 of the land stood vested in the state free from all encumbrances. In Satendra Prasad Jain v. Slate of U.P., the question arose

whether notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 get lapsed if the award is not made within two years as envisaged under section 11A? A Bench of three Judges had held that once possession was taken and the land vested in the Government, tide of the land so vested in the State is subject only to determination of compensation and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting the title to the land statutorily vested in the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act. Only Section 48(1) gives power to withdraw from acquisition that too before possession is taken. That question did not arise in this case. The property under acquisition having been vested in the appellants, in the absence of any power under the Act to have the title of the appellants divested except by exercise of the power under section 48(1), valid title cannot be defeated. The exercise of the power to quash the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court under those circumstances would not have interfered with the acquisition and quashed the notification and declaration under section 4 and 6 respectively. Considered from either perspective, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in allowing the writ appeal."

13. The other decision referred to by the learned Government Advocate is Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay v. I.D.I. Co., Pvt., Ltd., . He very much relied on the following conclusion

arrived at in paragraphs 28 and 29 in that decision:-

"28. In Ramchand v. Union of India, , another Bench of three Judges of this Court had held that because of inordinate delay in approaching the Court after entire process of acquisition was over pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under section 6, the Court was not justified in quashing the same. Same view was reiterated in Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, : Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi,

: Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., v.

State of Rajasthan, : H.D. Vora v. State of

Maharashtra, , and Pt. Girdharan Prasad Missir v.

State of Bihar, 1980 (2) S.C.C. 83: A.I.R. 1979 N.O.C. 191.

29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notification. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration; before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches."

By relying on the said conclusion of Their Lordships, it is contended that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.

14, Finally he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sundara Naicker v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, . The learned Government Advocate has very much relied on the following conclusion from the said decision:-

"The next contention is that the declaration made under section 6 of the Act has not been published in the locality as required by sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader has not been able to place before us records to show that the substance of the declaration made under section 6 of Act has been published in the locality. However, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the same has been done. Even otherwise, we proceed on the basis that it has not been proved by the respondents that the substances of the declaration made under section 6 is published in convenient places; but, the failure to do so does vitiate the acquisition proceedings, because the supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal, has held that the requirement as to publication of

the substance of the declaration made under section 6 of the Act is directory, but not mandatory, the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-

"The purpose of the declaration under Section 6 is to render the land notified therein as that needed conclusively for public purpose. So, we are of the opinion that the notification under sub section (1) should not be invalidated for non compliance of the notification under section 6. It is true that the language in section 6(2) is in pari materia with section 4(1). The purpose of publication of the declaration is to give effect to the conclusiveness of the extent of the land needed for the public purpose or for a company as made under section 6(3) of the Act. Since there is an opportunity already given to the owner of the land or persons having interest in the land to raise their objections during the enquiry under Section 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with enquiry under section 5A unless they show any grave prejudice caused to them in non- publication of the substance of the declaration under section 6(1), the omission not publishing the substance of the declaration under section 6(1), in the locality would not render the declaration of section 6 invalid. We are not intending to say that the officer should not comply with the requirement of law and it is their duty to do it. But their dereliction to do so per se does not render the declaration under section 6 illegal or invalid. Therefore, the word "shall used in sub section (2) of section 6 should be construed to be only directory but not mandatory. Moreover, in this case notice was issued to the respondent under sections 9 and 10 pursuant to which they appeared before the L.A.O. and put forth their claim and the award has already been made. As stated earlier, since there is no inter se dispute as regards the appointment, the Land Acquisition Officer had already made the reference under section 30 and deposited the compensation in the Court of District Judge along with the reference."

That being so, the contention does not carry the case of the petitioner/appellant any further."

In this decision, the Division Bench has held that non publication of substance of declaration in convenient places of locality does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. They also held that the publication of declaration under Section 6 is directory but not mandatory.

15, In Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Us Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) L.W. 326, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the delay between the publication of section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months and that if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. It is also clear from the decision reported in Ponnaia v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1099, that all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have to be strictly complied with. There is no dispute on the above legal position. In so far as the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) LW 326 and Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home Department v. M. Natarajan are concerned Their Lordships have considered the delay between the publication of section 4(1) notification in the gazette and the public notice of the substance at the convenient places of the locality. Taking note of the provisions, namely, section 4(1) they have fixed two months as outer limit even though there is no such time limit prescribed in the Statute. In this context it is my duty to refer the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal, . As stated

earlier, now I am concerned with delay between the publication in official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient place of the locality of 6 declaration. While considering declaration under section 6 in the above said decision. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 6 have concluded thus:-

"Therefore, the word 'shall' used in section 4(1) should be construed to be mandatory because the requirement of section 4(1) of the publication of the notification in the gazette followed by their publication in the newspapers perhaps in some cases may not meet the needed purpose of notice to the owner or person claiming interest in the land proposed to be acquired. For instance, in rural areas most agriculturists may not read even the vernacular newspapers. Their fields are their world and work therein is their breadwinner. They would come to know only if the substance of the notification is published (announced) in the village by best of drum. Therefore, publication of the substance of the notification of section 4(1) and in the locality is mandatory but it is not the requirement of the law that it be done simultaneously with the publication in the gazette or newspapers. Though there is a time gap of more than six months between the date of the notification under section 4(1) in the state gazette and the date of the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality, the delay by. itself does not render the notification under section 4(1) published in the state gazette, invalid.

Though notice under Section 5A was issued to the respondent, he had not availed of the notice nor objected to the acquisition. The question emerges whether the non-publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) equally be mandatory and its omission renders the declaration invalid? The purpose of the declaration under Section 6 is to render the land notified therein as that needed conclusively for public purpose. So we are of the opinion that the notification under Section 4(1) should not be invalidated for non-compliance of the notification under Section 6. It is true that language in Section 6(2) is in pan materia with Section 4(1). The purpose of publication of the declaration is to give effect to the collusiveness of the extent of the land needed for the public purpose or for a company as made under Section 6(3) of the Act. Since there is an opportunity already given to the owner of the land or persons having interest in the land to raise their objections during the enquiry under Section 5A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A unless they show any grave prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1), the omission to publish the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) in the locality would not render the declaration of Section 6 invalid. We are not intending to say that the officer should not comply with the requirement of law and it is their duty to do it. But their dereliction under Section 6 illegal or invalid. Therefore, the word "shall" used in sub-section (2) of the Section 6 should be construed to be only directory but not mandatory. Moreover, in this case, notice was issued to the respondent under Sections 9 and 10 pursuant to which they appeared before the LAO and put forth their claim and the award has already been made. As stated earlier, since there is an inter se dispute as regards the apportionment, the Land Acquisition Officer had already made the reference under Section 30 and deposited the compensation in the Court of District Judge along with the reference."

The above said ratio has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sundara Naicker v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, . Their Lordships have held in the said

decision that the word "shall" used in sub-section (2) of Section 6 should be construed only to be directory, but not mandatory.

16. Apart from the law laid down by the above said two, decisions, it must be remembered that at the time of the publication of Section 6 Declaration in the official Gazette, there is no provision for publication of the same notification in the newspaper and in the locality. The same was brought into force by way of an amendment Act, namely, The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. As per the amended provisions, Notification under Section 6 was got published in two dailies, namely, 'The Hindu' and 'Dhinathandhi' dated 15.5.1985 and 13.5.1995 respectively. The substance of the Declaration was also got published in the locality on 11.6.1985. Admittedly, the amendment Act received the assent of the President on 24.9.1984. Hence the non-publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the two newspapers and the publication of the substance of the afore-said declaration in the locality was made only subsequent to the publication of the same in the Gazette as per the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It is also explained in the counter affidavit that though the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into effect from 24.9.1984, the instructions in regard to the implementation of the various provisions of the Amendment Act were issued by the Government only during January, 1985. It is also explained that on receipt of the instructions from the Government, Declaration Notification under Section 6 of the Act was got published in the two Daily newspapers on 15.5.1985 and 13.5.1985 and the substance of the Declaration Notification was also got published in the locality on 11.6.1985. In such circumstance, more particularly, the explanation offered in the counter affidavit and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal, as well as Division Bench of this Court in Sundara

Naicker v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, , in the absence of any prejudice caused on the petitioners, the delay in publication of 6 Declaration in the daily newspapers and publication of substance in the locality may not be accepted that it vitiated the acquisition proceedings.

17. Yet another circumstances to reject the contention of the case of the petitioners is the delay in approaching this Court by way of the present writ petition. Admittedly 4(1) Notification was published in the gazette even in the month of November, 1982 and 5A enquiry was conducted in January and April, 1983. It is not the petitioners' case that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, 4(1) Notification was published in the locality as well as in the local dailies. They also participated in the enquiry under Section 5A. The file produced by the learned Government Advocate strengthened the above factual aspect. As already stated in W.Ps. 2074, 2075 of 1988 6 declaration was published in the gazette on 14.11.84 and 19.12.84 respectively. The same was also published in the dailies as well as in the localities on 15.5.85, 13.5.85 and 11.6.85 in W.P. No.2074 of 88, and on 19.12.1984, 17.5.85 and 11.6.85 respectively in W.P. No.2075 of

88. Inspite of the above aspects and having participated and aware of the acquisition proceedings, they have approached this Court only on 2.3.88. As a matter of fact, the award was passed in both the cases on 10.6.87. The records produced by the learned Government Advocate also disclosed that the petitioners were served with notices for the award enquiry and they also participated in the said enquiry. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that after passing the Award on 10.6.87, the entire extent of lands covered under these writ petitions have been handed over to the requisitioning body even on 6.1.88 i.e., two months prior to the filing of the writ petitions. In the light of the above factual position I am of the view that the observation of Their Lordships in Sanjeevakumar M. and H.E. Co-operative Housing Society v. Mohd. A. Wahab, , more particularly para 12 (which I have already extracted in the earlier part of my judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. It is settled law that the people should be diligent in approaching this Court without undue delay and that when the land acquisition proceedings is made for a public purpose, it has to be interfered with only if both parties are diligent in approaching this Court without any delay. Same view has been reiterated in Manghi Radhakrishnan Nydoo and 6 others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others, 1994 WLR. 577 as well as in Thulasi Ammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others, 1994 WLR 584.

18. In the light of what is stated above, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, consequently both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.