M N LAKSHMIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act in G. O. Ms. No. 412, Housing Department, dated 9. 5. 1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11. 6. 1975 and also the declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner herein bearing S. Nos. 4/lbl, 4/1b2 and 4/1b3 measuring 0. 671/2 acres in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid land in question. THE Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as'the Act' for acquisition of an extent of 146. 54 acres of land in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, for the purpose of implementation of Housing Scheme to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population for development of the area as now Ramapuram neighbourhood Scheme. THE Government caused the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act in G. O. Ms. No. 412, Housing Department, dated 9. 5. 1975 to be published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 11. 6. 1975. It appears that the substance of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act was also published in the village and also by beat of Tom torn. When the Notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act was published, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has not come forward with objections to the proposed acquisition. After holding necessary enquiry, as contemplated under Sec. 5-A of the Act, the Government on consideration of the entire proceedings including the report of the Enquiring authority, was satisfied that the land was suitable for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired and after having satisfied about the suitability of the land caused the publication of the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act as in g. O. Ms. No. 973, Housing Department, dated 7. 6. 1978, published on 9. 6. 1978. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) WITH reference to the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry held under Sec. 5-A of the Act by reason of the fact that there was no notice to the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and that his name appears in sec. 4 (1) Notification and consequently there won't be any difficulty in causing the notice for enquiry being served on the petitioner. In this behalf learned Government Advocate contended that by reason of the failure to raise objections with reference to the acquisition, the petitioner was not given due notice.