STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAJAMANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1987 made in A.S. No. 10 of 1988 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1987 made in O.S. No. 368 of 1986 by the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman.

(2.) ADVERTING to the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair what comes to be known is that the respondent, herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 368 of 1986 on the file of Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman against appellants herein for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings of the defendants in G.O.R. No. 1018/Agriculture(AUI), dated 24.11,1984 and in G.O.Ms. No. 449 Agriculture, dated 18.3.1986 in respect of the suit property are illegal, void and unenforceable in law and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the said acquisition proceedings and for costs thereby contending that he is the owner of the properties in R.S.Nos.181/1, 183/5, 183/6, 183/7 and 183/8 situate in Maruthuvakudi vattam, village, Thiruvidamarudur Taluk of Thanjavur District; that first appellant herein issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land, Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in G.O.R. No. 1018 Agriculture (AUI) dated 24.11.1984 to acquire the said lands of the plaintiff along with other items for the purpose of formation of the National Agricultural Rice Research Project by the Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute, Aduthurai further appointing the second appellant herein as the Land Acquisition Officer; that the defendants have committed inordinate delay in the matter of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Act; that the said Notification not published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 19.12.1984 but it was p ublished in the daily newspapers "The Hindu" and "Thinathanthi" on 16.7.1985 only, thus after an inordinate delay of, eight months in the publication of the Notification which caused irreparable loss, injury, and prejudice to the "plaintiff" that the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued on 5.9.1985 by the second defendant; that thereupon the plaintiff filed his objections, on 19.9.1985 objecting to the acquisition proceedings; that second the defendant conducted the enquiry on 9.10.1985 and forwarded a report on 4.11.1985 without proper appreciation and consideration of the merits of the contentions of the plaintiff; that the reply of the Director,Tamil Nadu, Agricultural University and the Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute were forwarded by the second defendant along with the communication only on 28.10.1985; that the first defendant issued a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 449 Agriculture dated 18.3.1986 in the daily newspaper "The Hindu" dated 29.4.1986 and on such grounds the respondent would file the said suit praying for the relief sought for as extracted supra. 3 . On the contrary, the second appellant/defendant has filed a written statement before the trial court wherein besides generally denying all the allegations of the plaint, he would further submit that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 25.7.1985 i.e., immediately after the publication of the said Notification in the daily newspapers on 16.7.1985; that the draft Declaration under Section 67 of the Act was published within one year i.e. on 5.5.1986 from the last date of publication of the section 4(1) Notification as contemplated by the Amended Act; that the objections raised by the plaintiff/respondent at the time of section 5-A enquiry were duly considered and overruled on the ground that there were no other suitable lands for the purpose since they constitute a compact block; that the objections of the plaintiff were duly considered in each and every stage of the proceedings; that during Enquiry under Section 5 " A also, the plaintiff requested fair compensation for his enjoyment as tenants over the property and he did not raise any objection against the acquisition; that there is absolutely no delay in observing the formalities; that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the suit as framed is not maintainable and thus would pray to di smiss the suit. 4. Based on the above facts and circumstances as pleaded by parties, the trial court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.R. No. 1018 Agriculture (AUI), dated 24.11.1984 is valid and binding in law" 2. Whether proper enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act"

(3.) PRIOR to settling the only substantial question of law, as framed above at the admission stage, it is relevant to solve the legal question whether the suit is maintainable as instituted by the respondent in Court of civil jurisdiction"