P PRAGATHESWARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel appearing for the parties on either side.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner had challenged the acquisition of her land. The petitioner had purchased the disputed property by a registered sale deed on 13.03.1989. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called as the Act, was published in two Tamil Newspapers in "Madurai Mani" and "Kinnaz". It is the specific case of the petitioner that these two news papers do not have any circulation in the area where the land was situated. Further the case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 5-A of the Act was served on the petitioner. The third contention is to the effect that on the disputed land the coconut tope exists and as such as per the instructions from the Government, the land should not have been acquired.

(3.) So far as the publication in the newspaper is concerned, the only assertion made in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit is to the following effect. "Both the Tamil Dailies are popularly circulated in the Town." Hence, the contention of the petitioner deserves no consequence.