SELLAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition was connected to W.A.No.231 of 1989, W.P.No.7021 of 1989 etc., in the sense that it pertains to the very same acquisition of land and consequently was already directed to be posted together before the Bench along with the writ appeal. Though on 20.12.1990 the other matter came to be disposed of, this writ petition was omitted to be included along with them and, therefore, coming up separately before us for our consideration.

(2.) THE petitioners herein have filed the above writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking to call for and quash the records of the second respondent pertaining to the notice dated 24.10.1987 issued under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and claimed to have been served on them on 28.10.1987 and for a consequential direction for issue of a fresh notice to the petitioners after complying with the provisions of Secs.9 and 10 of the said Act. THE affidavit in support of the writ petition was filed by the fifth petitioner and he claims to have filed the said affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners as well. In the said affidavit, it is claimed that the petitioners as well as several others are joint and absolute owners 6f the lands and buildings comprised in S.No.100/4 of Tiruchengode village, that at the instance of Tiruchengode Municipality, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated for acquiring the lands for the purpose of expanding the existing Municipal Bus Stand, that overruling the objection, a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act has been issued, that challenging the acquisition proceedings, writ petitions have been filed and that they were surprised to receive the notice dated 24.10.1987 under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act on 28.10.1987. It was further claimed in the affidavit that a combined reading of Sec.9(2) and (3) of the Act shows that the notice shall be served at least 15 days before the date on which the persons concerned have to appear and state their respective interests before the Land Acquisition Officer, that in the present case the notice dated 24.10.1987 was served only on 28.10.1987 calling upon them to appear before the second respondent on 9.11.1987 and that inasmuch as the alleged mandatory requirement of 15 days notice was not adhered to, the said notice is not valid in law and consequently the failure to comply with the statutory provisions cannot be characterised as bona fide. Pursuing the said objection, it is further claimed in the affidavit that all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice are invalid in law and that the second respondent, who is obliged to give clear 15 days notice for appearing before him and make representations, should be directed to do so.

(3.) MR.I.Mahaboob Sheriff, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, reiterated before us the submission that the issue of a clear fifteen days notice is a mandatory requirement of Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act and this having not been done in this case inasmuch as there was no clear fifteen days, the award enquiry proceedings stood vitiated and all subsequent proceedings were rendered illegal. According to the learned counsel the whole process has to be redone by issuing fresh notice. The learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in (1982)2 L.L.J. 98 in support of his claim. MR.V.Sridevan, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents invited our attention to the details regarding the dates of actual service as indicated by us supra with reference to the relevant records and also submitted that the claim of mandatory requirement of 15 days clear notice is baseless and unwarranted by the provisions of Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act and that at any rate the award cannot be said to be vitiated on that ground alone.