KANNAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", an extent of about 539.98 acres in Nolambur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chen-galpattu District were sought to be acquired for the development of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification was issued in G.O.Rt.No.307, Housing Department, dated 11.12.1975 and published in the Gazette dated 31.12.1975. The deceased grandmother of the petitioner in W.P.No.9783 of 1982 and the petitioner in W.P.No.9784 of 1982 owned certain extents of land notified for acquisition. The declaration under Scc.6 of the Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.1784, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 30.121978 and published in the Gazette dated 30.12.1978. It is at this stage, the above writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the notification under Scc.4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raises the following points:

(2.) THE respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is stated in para.11 of the counter affidavit that the substance of the notification was published in the Village on 22.1.1976 and not on 22.2.1976 as contended by the petitioner. Taking the correct date viz., 22.1.1976, it is contended that there is no long gap of time between the Gazette Notification and the publication in the village. I am inclined to agree with the contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate on this aspect. It is now well settled that the Gazette Notification and the publication in the village can be separated by a gap of time and whether the gap of time will vitiate the acquisition proceedings will depend upon the facts of each case. In this case, the gap of time is not too long and the enquiry under Sec.5-A having been conducted only on 8.4.1976, there was also no prejudice to the land owners. Accordingly, I am dismissing the first contention.

(3.) SO far as the last contention is concerned, it is explained in para.10 of the counter-affidavit which is as follows: