AKILABASKAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above nine writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.384 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 6.9.96 in issuing Notification under Section 4 (1) of The Land Acquisition Act published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II Sec. 2 (Supplement) dated 23.10.96 and the Declaration under Section 6 of The Land Acquisition Act vide G.O. Ms. No.397 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10.11.97 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part II Sec. 2 dated 11.11.97 in respect of the petitioner's specific plots owned by each of the petitioner and quash the same.

(2.) According to the petitioners, each one of them purchased house site plot for putting up residential house for their occupation and also developed the plot. It is the contention of the petitioner in each of the writ petition that Section 4 (1) Notification impugned was never published in the locality and the name of the plot owners have not been set out in the Notification as well as Declaration. The lands have been acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses under the neighbourhood scheme. The petitioners were not aware of the acquisition. The petitioners are the registered owners. During February, 1997 only the petitioners came to know about the impugned notification. The petitioners were called upon to appear for Section 5-A enquiry, but actually there was no enquiry. The petitioner and others similarly placed were called upon to state their objections by way of written statement. Rule 4 (b) and (c), which are mandatory have been violated. None of the individual plot owners have been served with the enquiry report submitted by the 2nd respondent to the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the acquisition proceedings have been withdrawn.

(3.) However, Section 6 Declaration was issued on 10.11.97, but no notice has been served either under Section 9 (3) or under Section 10 of The Land Acquisition Act regarding passing of award. The acquisition is invalid, arbitrary and illegal since Section 4 (1) Notification is vague, Section 4 (1) Notification has not been published in the locality, that the acquisition is not bona fide, and that long prior to Section 4 (1) land has been laid out and the petitioners have purchased individual plots. The substance of Section 4 (1) Notification was not published in the locality, that there is delay between Section 4 (1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration, that 5-A enquiry has not been conducted, that Rule 4 has been violated, that there is no reason at all to acquire the petitioners' lands, that they have developed the lands for putting up their own construction and that the impugned acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.