C.K. NAMASIVAYAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) THE Government by G.O.Ms.No.336, dated 22.3.1983 issued a Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The proposed land of one acre and 9.25 cents in Vadaseri village, Kanyakumari District belong to the petitioner's father P.C. Kanniah Chettiar and four of his daughters. It was purchased by him on 7.1.1980. Notice was not issued to the real owners of the property and the Government proceeded to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner's father and four sisters filed W.P.7096 of 1984 challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court on 4.2.1992 directed the second respondent to issue notice to all the land owners and to hold enquiry, under Section 5A of the Act, afresh. Therefore, notice under Section 5A was issued to the petitioner's father and four sisters. Objections were filed. Petitioner's father attended the enquiry on 7.4.1992. Petitioner's father received a communication dated 3.7.1992 whereby he was informed that an enquiry under Section 3(b) would be held on 20.7.1992; on that day, he represented that there were alternate sites available and the purpose of which the land was to be acquired did not exist; further, 3.8 acres of land belongs to TANSI was also available and that can be acquired instead of his land. The second respondent did not communicate this to the requisitioning authority, viz., Telecommunication Department, but instead passed the order, on 28.7.1992, rejecting the objection. Therefore, the action of the second respondent in not referring the objection to the requisitioning authority is contrary to law. The petitioner's father passed away on 9.12.1993. Before the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's four sisters left India and they are residing abroad. Notice under Section 9(3), dated, 24.5.1994 was issued by the second respondent in the name of the petitioner's father(deceased) and also his four sisters. Coming to know of this fact, the petitioner presented the objection on 27.6.1994 to the second respondent stating that his father had expired and the petitioner's sisters were in abroad, the addresses where his sisters resided were also furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner's father was the owner of 7 cents; as per the last Will, the property devolved on the petitioner's mother, his five sisters, the petitioner himself and three other sisters. The petitioner sent a letter to the second respondent to send legal notice to all the legal heirs as they are all the persons interested in the land. The second respondent has neither taken any action, nor sent notices to all the legal heirs. The petitioner apprehends that the second respondent proceeds to hold enquiry, under Section 9(2)(3) of the Act. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the land was acquired in the public interest after duly observing statutory formalities. Pursuant to the Award, the Department deposited a sum of Rs.2,76,800/ - on 9.2.1994 and Rs.49,159/ - on 16.11.1999. The possession of the land in question was handed over to the Department on 28.7.1994 by the Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram. This respondent came to know of the stay order passed by this Court only on 1.8.1994. Once the possession has been taken, there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act to divest the possession already taken and therefore, there can be no question of any challenge to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act being countenanced after possession had been taken. In view of the interim stay granted, the petitioner and his agent are obstructing the construction of quarters, with the result that the financial sanction in this behalf need to be renewed from time to time. Petitioner has not made out any to have Section 6 Declaration to be quashed by this Court.