STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A MOHAMMED YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Notification issued under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to acquire some land including an extent of 11 grounds and 1202 sq. feet forming part of R.S. No. 543/3 Nungambakkam Village, Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras belonging to the respondents herein was challenged by the respondents in W.P. No. 8548 of 1983. THE notification reads as follows :? ?ACQUISITION OF LANDS (G.O.Ms. No. 847, Housing and Urban Development, 31 st May 1983) No. II (2)/HOU/3364/83 Whereas it appears it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the lands specified below and situated in Nungambakkam Village, Egmore?Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras district are needed for a public purpose, to wit, for development of the area by construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provision of sub-S.(1) of S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Central Act I of 1894) : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-S.(2) of S. 4 of the said Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises the Special Tahsil-dar (?Land Acquisition). Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83, his staff and workmen to exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section, and under clause (c) of S. 3 of the said Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby appoints the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83 to perform the functions of a Collector under S. 5-A of the said Act.? THE challenge to the notification was on the grounds (1) that the notification was vague and (2) that there was no indication that it was for a public purpose.

(2.) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the writ petition was resisted, and apart from filing objections on merits, it was contended that no writ petition challenging a notification under S 4(1) of the Act was maintainable. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 2-9-1988, and the respondents to the writ petition have come up in appeal.

(3.) WE agrre with the learned counsel for the respondents that if S. 5-A enquiry had to serve any purpose, then it must be given full effect and that can be done only if the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired have an opportunity to submit their objections. Those objections, according to the learned counsel, could only be submitted if the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act while mentioning the public purpose gives some definite indication or particulars of the said purpose which would enable the persons concerned to object effectively, if so desired. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India 1 , the apex court has held that in the absence of a specific or particular purpose being stated, the objector cannot file any proper or cogent objections under S. 5-A which he has a right to do under that provision, and his inability to file such objection owing to the vagueness and indefiniteness of the public purpose stated in the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act would render the notification bad particularly in the absence of any proof that the owner of the land was either aware of or shown the scheme which was sought to be put into operation after the acquisition of the land.