MAY GEORGE Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 1692 of 1997 by which the Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 4.12.1997 in Writ Petition No. 14319 of 1986 wherein the appellant had challenged the Award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that he had been served with the notice under Section 9(3) of the Act.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.1.1976 covering the area to the extent of 30.80 acres being part of different survey numbers and belonging to large number of persons in Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District of Tamil Nadu for planned development of Electrical/Electronics Industrial Estate including appellant's land measuring 33 cents therein in Survey No. 36/1A/1. Considering grave urgency, filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with and provisions of Section 17 of the Act were resorted to. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 1.10.1976 and Award under Section 11 was made on 16.11.1979 in respect of entire land covered by the said Notification and Declaration.

(3.) Appellant claimed that she had purchased the said land on 27.9.1961 and mutation had taken place, thus her name stood recorded in the revenue record. Appellant's grievance has been that she had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice under Section 9(3) of the Act. She was never dispossessed from the said part of the land. She was granted temporary licence for establishing Small SCALE Industries on 24.11.1984 and a permanent certificate for the said purpose on 31.1.1986.