LAWS(MAD)-2002-4-218

P. NIRMALA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI,

Decided On April 01, 2002
P. NIRMALA Appellant
V/S
The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Government Letter No.31281/Va.Ni./1(2)/2000 -7 dated 06 -09 -2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to exclude the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey NO.100/1 100/4 and 100/9 -A measuring an extent of 3 acres situate in Vengikkal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District in the guise of the land acquisition proceedings issued under Sec. 4 (1) Notification in G.O.Ms. No.454, Revenue Department Dated 03 -06 -1998 culminated into Sec. 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.592 Revenue (RAI) dated 13 -07 -1998.

(2.) Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the owner of agricultural lands comprised in Survey Nos. 100/1, 100/4 and 100/9 -A measuring in all 3 acres at Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and it was the only source of income for her family. The 1st respondent has issued notification Under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act, 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act in G.O.Ms. No.454, Revenue Department Dated 03 -06 -1998 invoking the urgency clause as provided under Sec.17 of the Act and sought to acquire an area of 236 acres of land including the petitioner for providing construction of office building under the master plan complex scheme for Tiruvannamalai District. The enquiry under Sec. 5A of the Act was dispensed with, Sec.6 declaration was made under G.O.Ms.No.592 Revenue (RA -I) dated 13 -07 -1998 which was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette - Gazette Extraordinary dated 13 -07 -1998. The petitioner was not served with the notice for award enquiry but only after the award was passed, on 27 -03 -2000 the notice was received by the petitioner. It is also alleged by the petitioner that she was compelled to sign the notice by putting anti date namely 24 -03 -2000. According to the petitioner, she is still in possession of the property. It is further alleged that an extent of only 6 acres was utilised for the office building and the balance lands namely 230 acres are unutilised. The lands of the petitioner are located at the extreme southern end of 30 feet road which can be excluded without affecting the scheme. The lands in Survey No. 98 to 100 belonged to 9 persons including the petitioner herein which were classified as Block No.13. The petitioner has made a representation dated 23 -07 -1990 to exclude her land. The Joint Commissioner in his proceedings dated 25 -02 -2000 has called for topo sketch and combined sketch and remarks of the District Revenue Officer. No order has been passed on her petition, hence she has filed Writ Petition No. 6506 of 2000 challenging the acquisition proceedings which was dismissed on 12 -07 -2000 with a direction to dispose of the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, hence this present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the 1st respondent has excluded the lands of the other owners which are abutting in the main road but refused to exclude the lands of the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind. Discriminating the petitioner amounts to violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The lands of the petitioner is not required for any public purpose as alleged by the respondents. Before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner, which is mandatory under Sec. 48 -B of the Act.