LAWS(MAD)-2000-1-44

VELUSAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On January 14, 2000
VELUSAMY Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-2 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the owners of the lands bearing S.F. Nos.301/1A2, 301/1B, 302/1B, 301/1C, 302/1A2, 301/2, 302/1C, 302/2, 311/1 and 311/2 in Kallapatti village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District. THE said lands were sought to be acquired by the Government for neighbourhood scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.192 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.2.1994 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24.2.1994. THE appellants claims that they have submitted their objections on 19.8.1994. After holding enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act and after considering the objections raised by the appellants, as recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer,declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 28.6.1995. At this stage, the appellants have challenged the said acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10426 and 10427 of 1999.

(2.) MAINLY two points were raised in the writ petitions, namely, the lands sought to be acquired by the respondents are approved to form layouts and so they cannot be acquired, and, after getting remarks from the requisitioning body, on his objection, no further enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act as contemplated under Rule 3B of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules was conducted, and so the entire acquisition proceedings are invalid. The learned Judge in the order dated 28.9.1999, after considering these submissions found that the same cannot be sustained and dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners have filed the above writ appeals.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the local authority has approved the lay out, and the second respondent issued. No Objections for issuance of such lay-out. But, as held by the learned Judge, there is no prohibition under the said Act to proceed with the acquisition, if the lay-out has been approved with respect to the land in question.