M NATARAJAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms. No.481, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.4.1995, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 24.5.1995 and 6 declaration in G.O.(Rt) No.302, Housing and Urban Development, dated 2.7.1996, published in "Malai Murasu", dated 4.7.1996, in so far as their respective lands in S.No.292/1A, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore North.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the cases are thus. All the petitioners jointly purchased an extent of 5 acres of land in Survey No.292/1A, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk, from one M.Ramasamy and M.Sundaram, by a registered sale deed in Document No.2309/91, on 10.4.1991, for a total consideration of Rs.1.25,000. The petitioners have respectively paid their sale consideration in so far as their shares are concerned. After the purchase, all the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of lands and they jointly applied for mutation in revenue records. The Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North), in his proceedings in M.T.R. No.413/91, dated 23.8.1991, granted joint patta in Patta No.1047, containing the names of all the petitioners. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer issued chitta and adangal in favour of the petitioners and they prove the possession of the petitioners in so far as the lands purchased by them are concerned. The petitioners, by joint application dated, 30.8.1991, requested the Executive Officer, Kalapatti Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District, for sanction of a lay-out plan for house sites. The Executive Officer in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.633/91/A2, dated 15.10.1991, requested the Director of Town and Country Planning Department, Madras, for sanctioning the lay-out plan and the Director in his proceedings in P.Mu.No.41235/1A2, dated 19.2.1992, sanctioned and approved the lay out in Ma.Va/DTP No.214/92. During November, 1992, three house sites were sold to three different individuals through registered sale deeds. The petitioners came to know recently about the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1995 to acquire the lands of the petitioners. 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in G.O.Ms.No.481, dated 27.4.1995, proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioner for public purpose, namely, to construct houses under Kalapatti Sub-Urban Housing Scheme and it has been gazetted on 24.5.1995. The local publication was made on 27.5.1995 in local dailies. The petitioners understand that 5(A) Enquiry notice ws issued to the land owners by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1136/88. No notice was received by the petitioners for 5(A) Enquiry, even though the petitioners purchased the land as early as in the year 1991 and mutation has been effected in the revenue records in 1991 itself. The petitioners did not appear in 5(A) Enquiry. The first respondent has passed a declaration under Sec.6 in G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 2.7.1996 and it was published in the daily "Malai Malar" on 4.7.1996. All the facts came to the knowledge of the petitioners only in the middle of August, 1996, when the adjacent land owners informed them about the acquisition proceedings. The entries revenue records pertaining to the lands of the petitioners show that the petitioners are the land owners and not his vendors. The mutation of revenue records were effected in the year 1991 itself. While that being so, the issuance of 4(1) Notification in the name of the vendors of the petitioners is totally erroneous and it shows that the respondents have not applied their mind to the fact of the case and they did not verify the revenue records. In the absence of the Notification under Sec.4(1) in the names of the petitioners, further proceedings to acquire the lands without affording an opportunity to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary exercise of power and unreasonable. The respondents at least, should have taken steps to issue notice to the petitioners at the time of 5(A) enquiry, but they did not do so. The declaration issued under Sec.6 also shows the vendors of the petitioners as land owners, which is erroneous. In the master plan drawn by the competent authority, the lands of the petitioners in Survey No.291/1A have been shown as approved lay-out and hence the acquisition proceedings are liable to be struck down on the ground of non application of mind. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to quash the 4(1) Notification and 6 Declaration issued by the respondents in so far as their lands in Survey No.292/1A, Kalappatti Village is concerned.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, when the enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act was conducted, admittedly, no notice was served on any one of the petitioners. On the contrary, notice was sent to the vendors of the petitioners but they were also not served with the notice and in the files it is recorded that they were absent and the notice was served by affixture. The learned senior counsel submits that lands to an extent of 2.78 acres in Survey Nos.295/1, 292/2 and 2906/5 in Kalappatti village was sought to be acquired for the very same scheme under Notification in G.O.Ms.No.190, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.2.1994 and that land owner challenged the notification in W.P.No.324 of 1999 on the ground that no notice under Sec.5(A) of the Act was served on him and this Court, by order dated 22.3.1999, has quashed the 4(1) Notification on that ground alone. A xerox copy of the order in that writ petition is also produced. In the present case also, no notice was served on the petitioners for enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act. It is needless to say that the enquiry contemplated under Sec.5(A) of the Act would be full and complete only when the person, who is really interested in the land, is put on notice. It is settled law that enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act is not an empty formality and notice for such enquiry has got to be served strictly in accordance with the mandates of Sec.45 of the Act. The land acquisition is carried out based on the records maintained by the revenue department and the files relating to this acquisition also contain the revenue record which shows that the petitioners are the owners of the land in Survey N.292/1A and inspite of it, the enquiry officer did not take steps to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act. Therefore, without giving notice to the petitioners for the enquiry, under Sec.5(A), the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is quite illegal and they are liable to be quashed.