JUDGMENT 1. Ten years after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.2.92, followed by the publication of Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.4.93 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, these two writ petitions, one by Mrs.Kotteeswari, W/o Gnanasekaran and another by Mr.Sampath, S/o Govindasamy, were filed challenging the publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration in respect of Survey No.1240 at Kamalvar Kurrukku Veedhi, Chetty Kulam Silar Sahib Street, Siva Kanchi Village, Kancheepuram Town relating to the dwelling houses measuring an extent of 525 sq.ft. each owned by the petitioners and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dwelling houses situated in Survey No.1240, Kamalvar Kurrukku Veedhi, Chetty Kulam Silar Sahib Street, Siva Kanchi Village, Kancheepuram Town were owned by the petitioners and when they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, the first respondent issued the Section 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 5.2.92, followed by the Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.4.93 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking to acquire the dwelling houses of the petitioners. But the Section 4(1) notification, according to the learned counsel, was not published in any well read newspapers, as a result, the petitioners were not aware of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.2.92, inasmuch as there was no local publication of the substance of the notification. It is not proper for the respondents, hence, to expect the petitioners to know about the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) in order to challenge the same in time. Therefore, aggrieved by the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petitions and the delay aspect should not come in their way to question the correctness of the aforesaid notifications. 3. The learned counsel further contended that when the petitioners were in possession of one dwelling house each, they were not given any opportunity to represent the matter before the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai the second respondent herein, as a result, the respondents have not followed the principles laid down under Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules. Moreover, when the objections could not have been given, the requisitioning department's remarks could not have been called for in respect of the dwelling houses of the petitioners, which goes to show that the respondents had hurriedly and hastily proceeded with the acquisition proceedings without even paying the compensation to the petitioners. It was further contended that the petitioners were not even served with the notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, ("the Act" for short) which gives an impression that the award enquiry was not properly conducted. In view of that, the entire mini Kancheepuram neighbourhood scheme cannot be implemented. It was further contended that though the notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 were issued long time ago i.e., during 1992 and 1993 respectively, since they were not paid compensation and the lands are still in their possession, the respondents could not implement the scheme in its entirety by dispensing with the petitioners dwelling houses. Therefore, they should be injuncted from implementing the scheme against the only dwelling houses of the petitioners. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulsum R.Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 6 SCC 348 and argued that for the acquisition of land for public purpose, the respondents should comply with all the mandatory requirements, namely, to publish the notification under Section 4(1) in the official Gazette and particularly, the substance of the notification in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired. But in the present case, since the said mandatory requirements have not been followed, particularly by publishing the substance of the notification in the locality, the entire acquisition proceedings should be held as null and void. 4. One another judgment was also pressed into service in Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others to say that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government. In respect of the delay in publishing the award, it was contended that even if there is a delay of one day in passing the award, the entire land acquisition proceedings should be held as abated. In support of this contention, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.Rajamani v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2007 Writ L.R. 538 was relied upon. Finally, another judgment of the Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Schrawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1 MLJ 808 was heavily relied upon to say that it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive a person of his/her only dwelling house by way of acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Adding further, it was stated that the respondents, without realising that the petitioners are having one dwelling house each and majority of people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity, cannot be allowed to acquire the land of the petitioners and the said attempt should be held as illegal. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2, by relying upon the detailed counter affidavit, strongly objected to the prayer for quashing of the notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the writ petitions are not at all maintainable in view of the fact that they have been filed with a huge delay of ten years after the publication of the notifications. Neatly meeting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no proper publication of the substance of the notification in the locality, it was argued that an extent of 24.86 ½ acres of dry land in Survey No.1240/2 etc., of Konerikuppam Village was proposed for acquisition for the formation of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Accordingly, the gist of the notification was published in the dailies on 12.4.92 and 13.4.92 and Section 4(1) notification was published in the village and in the locality on 29.4.92. Accordingly, the gist of the notification was published in the dailies on 12.4.92 and 13.4.92 and Section 4(1) notification was published in the village and in the locality on 29.4.92. After observing the usual formalities, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 1.6.92 and 27.8.92 and all those objections were communicated to the Chairman and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board for remarks in Rc.No.2883/89/E1 dated 8.9.92 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also in their reference in LA1/19418/86 dated 1.2.93, recommended to overrule the objections and to initiate further proceedings, since the lands were required for forming the comprehensive housing scheme. Subsequently, the opinion of the Housing Board was also communicated to the land owners and the further enquiry under Rule 4(b) was also conducted on 3.3.93 and 4.3.93 at Taluk office, Kancheepuram, wherein the land owners also appeared and reiterated the same objections raised by them at the time of Section 5-A enquiry, but all those objections were overruled. At this juncture, the petitioners have moved this Court by filing the present writ petitions seeking an order of interim stay and an interim order was also granted, as a result, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act for an extent of 21.59 ½ acres leaving an extent of 3.27 acres covered by stay, was sent to the Government and the Government also had approved the same in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.4.93, which was published in the Gazette on 27.4.93, in the newspapers, Makkalkural and Vetrimalai on 28.4.93 and in the locality on 29.4.93. Since the interim order of stay granted by this Court, which was modified to dispossession afterwards, covers the remaining extent of 3.27 acres, another draft declaration for the said land was also sent to the Government and the same is pending for consideration, in view of pendency of this writ petition here. It was further submitted that when the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration were issued, after complying with the mandatory requirements, amendment notifications due to the change of notation of the lands were approved by the Government on 17.3.95 and the same was published in the Gazette on 22.2.95 and in the dailies on 24.3.95 and 25.3.95 and in the locality on 27.3.95. Thereafter, notices under Section 9(3) and 10 were served on the interested persons on 23.3.95 fixing the dates of award enquiry on 6.4.95, 7.4.95, 10.4.95 and 11.4.95 and finally the award came to be passed on 28.4.95 in Award No.1 of 1995. Subsequently, notices under Section 12(2) were also served on 14.6.95. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was a failure on the part of the respondents in publishing the notifications in the Gazette, dailies and in the locality is far from truth, for the simple reason that when all other persons have accepted even the payment of compensation and not challenged the award, only these two petitioners have come before this Court, that too after ten years from the date of publication. Therefore, the petitioners should be held guilty of laches. Further, in view of the order of dispossession granted by this Court in respect of a small area, the entire project is stalled. When the lands are required for the preparation of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme, the petitioners land alone cannot be deleted from the acquisition proceedings, as the continuity and viability of the scheme could not be possible. It was finally contended that when the award enquiry notice were served on the petitioners, they have deliberately not appeared for the award enquiry and when they have not appeared for the award enquiry, the compensation amount payable to their land was ordered to be kept in City Civil Court deposit under Sections 30 & 31(2) of the Act. 6. The third respondent, the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Housing Unit, Sathuvachari, who was impleaded during the pendency of the writ petitions, has also filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the very same averments of the respondents 1 & 2. The learned counsel for the third respondent also adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader and submitted that the writ petitions are not at all maintainable, as the respondents have complied with the mandatory requirements specified under the Act. 7. I fully agree with the above submissions. The reason being that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, keeping the object of formation of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme, proposed to acquire 24.86 ½ acres of dry land covered in Survey No.1240/4A etc., of Sivakanchi, part of Konerikuppam Village, Kancheepuram Town and Taluk. 7. I fully agree with the above submissions. The reason being that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, keeping the object of formation of Mini Kancheepuram Neighbourhood Scheme, proposed to acquire 24.86 ½ acres of dry land covered in Survey No.1240/4A etc., of Sivakanchi, part of Konerikuppam Village, Kancheepuram Town and Taluk. The said proposal was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 5.2.92 and the same was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 26.2.92. The gist of the notification was thereafter published in the dailies on 12.4.92 and 13.4.92. Once again the above notification was published in the village and in the locality on 29.4.92 by classifying the land as 'dry' in the accounts. Subsequently, after observing all the formalities, the enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 1.6.92 and 27.8.92. When the objections were received from the land owners and other interested persons at the time of Section 5-A enquiry, the same were communicated to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for their remarks in letter R.C.No.2883/89/E1 dated 18.9.92 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also recommended in their letter dated 1.2.93 to overrule all those objections and to initiate further proceedings, as the lands are required for the formation of the scheme. When the other land owners appeared for enquiry under Section 5-A and reiterated their objections, it is an admitted fact that these two writ petitioners did not participate in the enquiry. Some of the persons along with the petitioners filed writ petitions and obtained an order of interim stay of dispossession. In view of the interim order of dispossession granted by this Court, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act for an extent of 21.59 ½ acres, leaving the extent of 3.27 acres covered by the stay order, was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department on 26.4.93 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 27.4.93, apart from the publication in the newspapers, Makkal Kural and Vetrimalai on 28.4.93 and in the locality on 29.4.93. When the respondents have given the date of publication of the gist of the notification in the dailies and also the further publication of the notifications in the village and in the locality on 29.4.93, the grounds taken by the petitioners in the writ petitions that when the Section 4(1) notification was not published in the well read newspapers and there was no publication of the substance of the notification in the locality, the acquisition proceedings are illegal, deserve to be rejected, since the petitioners have deliberately concealed all these facts. After the notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were served on the interested persons on 23.3.95, the award enquiry was fixed under Section 11 of the Act on 6.4.95, 7.4.95, 10.4.95, 11.4.95 and only thereafter, the award was passed on 28.4.95 in Award No.1 of 1995. But when the said notices were served on the petitioners, they deliberately refused to participate in the said proceedings. Even though the respondents have reiterated their stand in the counter affidavit that the notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioners on 14.6.95, no rebuttal or denial was made on the side of the petitioners, which goes to show that the petitioners intentionally not participated in the award enquiry and failed to submit any objection or representation before the authority. Therefore, the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Schrawat's case, (2012) 1 MLJ 808 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, since the said judgment deals with the non-publication of the notification as per the statutory requirements. But in the present case, the gist of the notification was published in the dailies on 12.4.92 and 13.4.92 and again the notification was published in the village and in the locality on 29.4.92. Therefore, this Court finds that the acquisition proceedings are legal. These facts have been completely suppressed by the petitioners. Similarly, the other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court finds that the acquisition proceedings are legal. These facts have been completely suppressed by the petitioners. Similarly, the other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Further, this Court, by taking note of the fact that the writ petitions were filed with a huge delay of ten years after the publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6, finding no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and Rules on the part of the respondents, refuses to entertain the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.