A. THANGA NADAR Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS AND THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEME AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of his lands. His case is that he owns 15 cents in New Survey No.N3 -713 -A of Nagercoil village, Agasteeswaram Taluk. He claims that the land stands in his own name. Section 4 notification was published by G.O.Ms.No.1213 dated 17.9.1991 and was published in the gazette on 11.12.1991. He claims that he appeared and objected to the acquisition and also gave statements before the second respondent. He points out that this acquisition was by the Housing and Urban Development Department for creating houses in the neighbourhood scheme. She further points out that Section 6 declaration was published vide G.O.Ms.No.854, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.12.1992 and the same was published in the Government Gazette on the same day.

(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the breach of Rule 3(b). Learned counsel points out that after the objections were raised, they were sent for the replies of the Housing Board. But, no second opportunity was ever given to know about the replies for the objections raised, by the Housing Board. The learned counsel draws my attention towards the counter filed by the State Government and more particularly points that in para 2 of the said counter, the Government has accepted that the objections were referred to the Executive Engineer and the Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Learned counsel also points out that some replies were received from the Executive Engineer to those objections. He points out that though it is claimed in the counter that the copy of the remarks were served on the objectors, there was no opportunity given to hear the petitioner again, nor was any hearing fixed by the Acquisition Officer to consider the remarks along with the contentions raised by the petitioner.

(3.) I am afraid, the position is no better here and the writ petition will have to be allowed in the same manner, because here also though the counter is filed, there is no assertion that there was any fresh enquiry after the remarks were received from the Executive Engineer and were served on the petitioner. In that view, there is a clear breach of Section 3(b). The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. It is allowed, but without any orders as to the costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.1638 of 1995 is closed.