K PONNUSWAMY GOUNDER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by G.O.3D, No.36 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, 23rd January 1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26th February 1992 and the related Section 6 Declaration published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on March 26, 1993 concerning the petitioner's lands measuring 0.29.0 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.279-2 A2 in Erode Village. Erode Taluk, Periyar District and quash the same.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's lands situate at Veerappampalayam, Hamlet of Erode (A) Village, Erode Taluk were sought to, be acquired for providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. In this context, notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.11.1989 and gazette publication was made on l3.12.l989. The substance of the notification in the local newspapers was made on 16.12.1989 and 17.12.1989. The enquiry notice under Section 5(A) of the Act was issued on 25-1.1990.The petitioner has filed the objections on 2.3.1990. The enquiry was held on 7.3.1990. LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after the enquiry was held under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner was not informed of the further developments. While so, the respondents authorities have again issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the petitioner on 23.1.1992. The gazette publication of the said 4(1) notification was made on 26.2.1992. The substance of the notification was published in the news papers on 27.2.1992 and 29.2.1992. Again the enquiry notice under Section 5(1) of the Act was issued on 30.3.1992 and enquiry was held on 18.5.1992. The enquiry report was made ready on 22.5.1992. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.3.1992. The petitioner has made a representation to the Government on 14.8.1992 to delete the subject lands from the acquisition proceedings. LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when the earlier notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 18.11.1989 is in existence, the respondents authorities have no power to issue the successive notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 26.2.1992. He has further submitted that without dropping the earlier notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents authorities should not have issued the second notification under Section 4(1) Act with regard to same lands, on 26.2.1992. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents authorities have not come forward with the details of considerations available to them for issuing the successive notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, when the earlier notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is in existence. The other ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has to be issued within one year from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this case, the earlier notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 18.11.1989 and the authorities have proceeded till the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act which was held on 7.3.1990 and the respondents have failed to make the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, within one year and instead they have chosen to restart the proceedings by issuing the successive notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 26.2.1992 which vitiates the acquisition proceedings. For these reasons, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside.

(3.) AS the respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the records, it is not known whether the award has been passed. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before this court on 23.3.2001 to the effect that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No.279/2A2 measuring 0.29.0 hectares together with the rest of the land measuring 1.42.5 hectares(subject lands). From the said averment, it is presumed that no award has been passed though interim stay was granted only with regard to dispossession, by order dated 19.4.1993 and the same was made absolute on 3.8.1993 and the respondents were not prevented from proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings in other respects. The respondents have not come out with any case for issuance of the subsequent notification under Section 4(1) for different considerations prevailing at that time, when the earlier notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was in existence. AS there is no material to show that the earlier notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was withdrawn, following the decisions of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited above, it has to be held that the successive notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 26.2.1992, without withdrawing the earlier notification, is not a valid one and the land acquisition proceedings vitiate. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ananthi Ammal, 1995 (1) CTC 465 : AIR 1995 SC 2114, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if no award has been passed on or before 22.11.1994 (the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in Ananthi Ammal's case), the authorities have no power to proceed under the Central Land Acquisition Act and they have to proceed under the Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Act 31 of 1978), if they desire to acquire the lands. In this case, it is clear that no award has been passed on or before 22.11.1994. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ananthi Ammal's case, 1995 (1) CTC 465 : AIR 1995 SC 2114, it has to be held that the respondents herein have no power to acquire the lands of the petitioner under the Central Land Acquisition Act and they have to proceed under the Act 31 of 1978 stated above, if they so desire. For the reasons stated above, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.