K JAGANNATHAN Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD SCHEME ASHOK NAGAR MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are owners of 17 cents of land in Survey No.44/2 acres in Survey No.45/1 and 33 cents in Survey No:45/2 Part in Valasaravakkam Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District. THE Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published in the Tamil Nadu dated 11.6.1975 proposing to acquire a large extent of land including the abovesaid the appellants for what is called the Kalaig-nar Karunanidhi Nagar Extension According to the appellants, there was no publication of the substance of the notification the locality. THEy received notice under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Sec.55 of to submit their objections at the enquiry proposed under Sec.5-A of the Act. THEy filed objections but the same were overruled. THE declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published. THEy were served with notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act. THEy appeared at the enquiry on 24.2.1980 and submitted their objections. According to the appellants, they filed the writ petition No.11646 of 1985, no award had been passed. On the facts, the appellants sought for a writ of certiorari to quash notification under Sec.4(1) Act published in the Gazette on 11.6.1975 insofar as the lands of the appellants concerned. THE writ petition was dismissed on 7.1.1986. It is against the order the writ appeal has been filed. Pending disposal of the writ appeals, in respect of all the which are not covered by any stay order, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award the year 1986 within two years from the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act 68 of 1984. In respect of the lands of the appellants, there is a stay granted Court in C.M.P.No.2672 of 1986 against the passing of the Award and therefore the has not yet been passed in respect of the appellants" lands.

(2.) MR.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, raises contentions: (1) The substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in convenient places of the locality and this being a mandatory provision, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In any event there is long delay in such publication. (2) The long delay in passing an Award and offering compensation for the lands acquired, resulting in delayed payment of compensation also vitiates the acquisition proceedings. not disputed that the awards have been passed only in the year 1986 in respect of the other than those of the appellants.

(3.) THE principle of law with reference to the publication of the substance of Notification in the locality is thus clear. THE Supreme Court has pointed out that there a reasonable gap of time between the Gazette publication and the publication substance in the locality. As to what is reasonable time gap has, of course, to be the facts and circumstances of each case. For instance in G.Nandakumar v. State Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Madras-9, 1986 Writ. L.R. 164, the gap of six months between the Notification and the date of publication in the locality was considered to be too deciding the question whether the time gap is fatal to the acquisition proceedings or have to satisfy ourselves about two conditions as pointed out by the Supreme Deepak Pahwa v. Lt.Governor of Delhi, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1721: (1984)4 S.C.C. 308 as above. (1) To discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has prejudice to any one; (2) Whether any act has been done under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec.4 the substance of Sec.4(1) published in the locality. On neither of these points, Counsel for the appellants has placed any materials to come to the conclusion that in this case is fatal. We will now refer to the facts of the case by reference to the find out whether there was publication in the locality and if so whether it was reasonable time from the Gazette notification.