I. EASWARA PILLAI AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR HARIJAN WELFARE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners are brothers and are the sons of one Ayyappan Pillai. This family owned an extent of 2 acres 25 cents in old S. No. 3829 in Neendakara Village, Kanyakumari District. The family effected a partition of their properties by a registered document, dated 23rd February, 1968. Under that partition, each of the three petitioners got 75 cents in old S. No. 3829. But the registry continued to stand in the name of the father, Ayyappan Pillai. To provide house sites for Harijans, proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the petitioners' property was notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification was published on 26th November, 1968, In that notification the name of Ayyappan Pillai was shown as the person interested in the land. Notice of enquiry under Section 5 -A was sent to Ayyappan Pillai, who appeared before the Acquisition Officer and gave a statement disclaiming interest and further stating that under the partition in his family, the land had been allotted to his three sons in equal shares. He also raised objections to the acquisition. His objections were overruled. But notices were not issued to the petitioners. Then followed the declaration under Section 6 as per the order of the Government, dated 14th August, 1969. Notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 was issued to the petitioners' father calling upon him to state his interest in the land and asking him to put in a statement regarding the amount of compensation. The petitioners at this stage came forward with this writ petition questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. They pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they being the owners of the land, had no notice. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the description of the property given in the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 was not correct but defective and that on that account, the proceedings are vitiated. The further contention urged on their behalf is that failure to issue notice to them has resulted in denial of opportunity to them to put forward their objections and that on this account also the proceedings are vitiated.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Acquisition Officer, that the petitioners' father had notice of the acquisition proceedings, that the petitioners knew about the acquisition proceedings and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE other contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that they were denied reasonable opportunity of putting forward their objection to the acquisition. The notice under Section 5 -A was served only on the petitioners' father. In his objections given before the Acquisition Officer, the petitioners' father made clear that under the partition effected in his family, each of his three sons had been given 75 cents in the land proposed to be acquired. Thus, the Acquisition Officer was put in knowledge of the interest of the petitioners even at that time. But no step was taken to issue notice to the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners certain instructions issued by the Government and embodied in the Board's Standing Order were relied upon to show that the petitioners were entitled to notice. B.S.O. No. 90 occurring in Chapter VII of the Board's Standing Orders, Volume II, deals with acquisition of land for public purpose. Paragraph 90 of that Order states that after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the officer appointed to perform the functions of the Collector should give public notice of the proposed acquisition and hold an enquiry into the objections preferred, if any, in accordance with the rules framed by the Government under Section 55 of the Act. Then follows the important provision, which reads thus: