BHUVANENDRAN Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. Also, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction by this Court to the first respondent/Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur to receive and register the document in regard to property of S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District.

(2.) THE petitioner along with Veeramani purchased the property in S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District from one Kamalammal on 07.06.1989. After purchasing the property, he and the said Veeramani obtained loan from financial institutions and established an industry which manufactures high pressure pipe fittings.

(3.) A cursory perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 17.07.2000 in W.P.No.208 of 1993 shows that the Court has inter-alia observed as hereunder: In the counter filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioners have filed their objections belatedly. It is not clear from the counter whether the objections filed by the petitioners have been forwarded to the requisitioning body or not. It is only stated that the notice has been issued to the petitioner and enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act has been conducted. In para 5 of the counter, it has been stated that though the objection petition of the petitioners has been received in the office belatedly i.e., only on 29.10.1991. The objections have been considered at the time of 5A enquiry held on 29.10.1991 in the presence of the representative from the requisition body i.e., Surveyor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur. As the land lies in the middle of the scheme area, the objections of the petitioners could not be considered. From the above statement, it can be found that the respondents have failed to consider the objections. The contentions of the respondents are negatived by this Court in a number of decisions one such being reported in Lakshmanan Vs.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and another (2000 CTC 381). Under the above circumstances as held by this Court on the objections filed by the petitioner the respondents have to wait for the period of 30 days and act upon the same. It is very clear from the counter filed by the respondents that they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3-B and they have not considered the objections filed by the petitioners herein. It is also not clear as to whether the possession has been taken from the petitioners. Ultimately, for non compliance of Rule 3-B as well as non consideration of the observation, quashed the land acquisition proceedings.