PERIYA ANGAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the notification under section 4 (1), the declaration under section 6 and the award passed under the Land acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE lands in question were held by one Rangasami Gounder and the petitioner in w. P. No. 5559 of 1979. THE said Rangasami Gounder died even on 15th December, 1975. THE first petitioner in W. P. . No. 5558 of 1979, is the daughter and the second petitioner is the grandson of the said Rangasami Gounder, through the first petitioner. THE notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 10th January, 1979. Records produced disclose that the public notice of the substance of such notification was given in the locality as enjoined by the later part of section 4 (1) of the Act, read with rule 1 of the State Rules. No objection was received at the instance of the petitioners pursuant to such notification. THE declaration under section 6 of the Act was published on 12th march, 1979. Notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act are stated to have been served by affixture.

(2.) MR. K. Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were not at all aware of the acquisition proceedings until they received notices from the civil Court, obviously on a reference under section 31 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were not served with notices either under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act or under section 12 (2) of of the Act, since the petitioners admittedly did not participate in the award enquiry. I have perused the records. There are papers relating to service of notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. There is no paper relating to service of notice under section 12 (2) of the Act. Hence, it has to be taken that no notice was served under section 12 (2) of the Act. Coming to service of notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act with reference to the deceased Rangasami Gounder, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners in W. P. No. 5558 of 1979, the endorsement states that the said Rangasami Gounder is residing elsewhere. This is a callous incorrect endorsement. Such a statement does not bear out the factum of any proper enquiry having been made as enjoined by section 45 of the act. There is no dispute that the said Rangasami Gounder passed away even on 15th December, 1975. It is not stated in the endorsement, that attempt was made to serve the notice under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act on either of the petitioners in W. P. No. 5558 of 1979, or that they could not be found or any adult male member in the family also could not be found and hence it became necessary to serve the notice by affixture as contemplated under section 45 (3) of the Act. Even here, the endorsement reads that the notice was affixed on the survey stone and not on the outer door of the house concerned. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that heirs of the landowner refused tc receive the notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. This runs diametrically opposite to the above endorsement found among the papers with regard to service of such notices, and practically shakes the confidence of this Court with regard to the veracity of the version of the respondents over the question of service of the statutory notices. The records disclose a similar position with reference, to the alleged service of notice under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act on either of the petitioners in W. P. No. 5558 of 1979, or that they could not be found or any adult male member in the family also could not be found and hence it became necessary to serve the notice by affixture as contemplated under section 45 (3) of the Act. It is stated in the relevant endorsement that the petitioner in W. P. No. 5559 of 1979 was residing in some other village and it is further stated in the said endorsement that he refused to receive the notice. Both these statements are irreconcilable. If the petitioner in W. P. No. 5559 of 1979 was residing elsewhere and could not be found, as alleged, there could be no question of refusal of notice by him. If he could not be found, then, attempt ought to have been made to serve the notice on any adult male member of his family as enjoined by subsection (3) of section 45 of the Act. Admittedly, that was not done. The endorsements do not bring conviction to the mind of this Court that notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act were served on the petitioners and a farce of service of notices has been adopted in the instant case. Those factors oblige me to hold that there was total lack of notices under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. As stated above, there is no record produced to prove service of notices under section 12 (2) of the Act which cannot be skipped over since, admittedly the petitioners did not participate in the award enquiry. In the said circumstances, the petitioners must be deemed to have been put to prejudice on account of the failure on the part of the authorities to serve the statutory notices on the petitioners. Tt is not stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners are persons not interested in the lands concerned and not occupiers of such lands.

(3.) RAMAMURTI, J. , in Tuticorin Municipal Council v. Arunagiri5, countenanced the proposition that failure to issue notice under section 9 could not invalidate or render nugatory the validity of the proceedings up to the stage of the declaration made under section 6; the failure to give notice under section 9 could only have the effect of preserving the rights of the party from that stage; rights and advantages or benefits which would accrue to a party; if a notice under section 9 had gone to him such rights would not be affected and he would be clearly bound by the consequences of the proceedings up to the stage of section 9.