S SIVANANDAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this review application praying to review the judgment rendered in W.A.No.2029 of 1999, dated 14.9.2000 by this Court thereby confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17858 of 1991, dated 28.6.1999 thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by five petitioners of whom the review applicant is the 5th petitioner therein.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above review application to come into being, it is the writ petition that has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein and his brothers and sister, all numbering five, praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the first respondent/ State of Tamil Nadu in respect of G.O.Ms.No.536, Housing and Urban Development, dated 5.4.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.1378, Housing and Urban Development, dated 24.10.1991 and quash the said proceedings insofar as it related to the petitioners land in T.S.No.50/1 in an extent of 2.72.82 hectares of Kilperumbakkam Village, Villupuram Taluk on averments such as that there was a dispute going on between the co-owners of the property and their father and that there was a decree, which came to be passed in the year 1983; that at the time when the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act") was passed, the appeal against the decree was pending; that the question of title of the co-owners had not been finalised till then and that in the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act, only the name of the father came to be mentioned and not that of the petitioners thus denying them an opportunity to participate in the enquiry held under Sec.5-A of the Act. On these and such other grounds, the petitioners therein challenged the Land Acquisition proceedings mainly claiming that there was no proper notice or opportunity for them to be heard. The learned single Judge, having examined the facts and circumstances in the context of the petition as put forth by rival parties and in further consideration of the position of law relating to the subject, ultimately, dismissed the writ petition on ground that it was without merit, testifying the validity of which W.A.No.2029 of 1999 was preferred by the fifth petitioner in the writ petition before this Bench and this appellate forum also, having examined the appeal on merits, dismissed the appeal with a minor clarification.

(3.) THE last judgment cited above, which has been delivered by a Full Bench of this Court is in a writ petition based on theLand Acquisition Act. While dealing with the entitlement of a person interested to notice, if the name of such person is brought to the notice of the Collector, even though his name may not be found d entered in the revenue records, the Full Bench has held: "THE enquiry contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act would be full and complete only when the person who is really interested in the land is put on notice." But, at the same time, it is made clear that, "Individual notice is mandatory only to those persons whose names are found by the Collector as persons interested, on information received through reliable source." On such arguments advanced, the petitioner would ultimately pray to review the judgment dated 14.9.2000 rendered in W.A.No.2029 of 1999.