R ANUSUYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in G.O.Ms.No.1369 Transport Department dated 11.11.1983 was published in the Gazette on 7.12.1983. The land was sought to be acquired for the Central Government for the purpose of construction of Central Post Office Building. Initially the property was described as appertaining to S.No.735-2 (part), but subsequently an errata was issued and published in the Gazette on 29.2.1984 indicating Survey Number as 935/2. Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms.No.1592 dated 3.9.1986, which was published in the Gazette on 24.9.1986. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4925 of 1987 to quash the land acquisition proceedings. One of the contentions raised was to the effect that the remarks of the requisitioning authority were communicated to the land owners on 26.4.1984 and the land owners have sent their further objections on 16.5.1984 and 18.5.1984, but no enquiry under Section 5-A was held after 26.4.1984. Following the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1994 WLR 326 (N.D. RAMANUJAM v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS, MADRAS CITY AND OTHERS), the writ petition was allowed by Justice Shivaraj Patil (as His Lordship then was) by judgment dated 8.8.1994. While quashing the declaration under Section 6, it was observed that the proceedings may continue from the stage after 4(1) notification. It was indicated that opportunity of further reply and hearing should be given. While the matter was pending before the High Court, some discussion was going on between the petitioners and the postal department for accepting lesser extent of property and it is stated that the postal department had agreed to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings subject to certain conditions. After the matter was decided by the High Court, Notice in Form-A under Rule 3 was issued indicating that the objections received within the due date would be enquired into on 18.1.1995. It is stated in the said notice that the schedule mentioned property is to the extent of 36,593 sq.ft. but the exact extent of land sought to be acquired was not indicated. It is alleged that the notice did not conform the provisions of the Rule 3. It is further stated that all the petitioners have filed their written objections after receiving such notice and the petitioners 2 & 3 were present before the third respondent on 18.1.1995 by about 10.45 am for the enquiry and they had waited till 1.30 pm., but the third respondent was not present and no enquiry was held. In such objections, it has been indicated by the petitioners that the requirement of the postal department was only 400 sq.ft and there was no necessity to acquire the entire land. It is further stated that the objections were rejected and the third respondent had recommended that acquisition may be made. The declaration dated 6.2.1995 under Section 6 of the Act was published.

(3.) Acquisition has been challenged on several grounds. It is first contended that Section 6 declaration has not been made within the period contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. It has been further indicated that no enquiry had been held on 18.1.1995 as has been indicated in the notice and without holding any enquiry and giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the subsequent declaration is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further stated that the objections raised were mechanically rejected. It has been further contended that even during pendency of the earlier writ petition, discussion had been held between the petitioners and the representatives of the postal department and the latter had agreed to acquire lesser extent of land and without considering these aspects, declaration had been issued mechanically. It has been further contended that in 4(1) notification it has been indicated that an extent of 36,000 sq.ft. was sought to be acquired, whereas in the notice dated 14.12.1994 it has been indicated that an extent of 36,593 sq.ft. was sought to be acquired and this particular aspect has been specifically pointed out in the objections. It has been further contended that the requisitioning authority was the Government of India and the Senior Superintendent of Post Office had no role in the matter. It is further indicated that only the Revenue Department is competent to acquire the property in favour of the Central Government and the acquisition notification issued by the Transport Department cannot be sustained.