CHINTHAMANI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners have chosen to question the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and also under Section 6 on the ground that the person interested has not been issued any notice. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 11.2.1991, it has been gazetted on 13.3.1991, paper publication was made on 15.3.1991, it was published in the locality on 18.3.1991. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 19.6.1991 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 23.6.1991. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition after the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners' sister by name Mrs.Chinthamani, who has got a share in the property. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has been informed of the above fact, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay of dispossession was ordered. However the award was passed on 25.11.1992.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the name of the petitioners' sister namely, Mrs.Chinthamani is not found in the revenue records during the course of the 5-A enquiry it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that she is one of the shareholders and she has got a share in the property. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has proceeded with the 5-A enquiry on the ground that she has neither appeared nor given any representation with respect to her rights. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground that no notice has been issued to Mrs. Chinthamani . He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras-1 and another, 1989 T.L.N.J. 107 wherein it is held as follows: