S.KOTTEESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEN years after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.2.92, followed by the publication of Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27.4.93 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, these two writ petitions, one by Mrs.Kotteeswari, W/o Gnanasekaran and another by Mr.Sampath, S/o Govindasamy,were filed challenging the publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration in respect of Survey No.1240 at Kamalvar Kurrukku Veedhi, Chetty Kulam Silar Sahib Street, Siva Kanchi Village, Kancheepuram Town relating to the dwelling houses measuring an extent of 525 sq.ft. each owned by the petitioners and to quash the same.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dwelling houses situated in Survey No.1240, Kamalvar Kurrukku Veedhi, Chetty Kulam Silar Sahib Street, Siva Kanchi Village, Kancheepuram Town were owned by the petitioners and when they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, the first respondent issued the Section 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 5.2.92, followed by the Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.328, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.4.93 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking to acquire the dwelling houses of the petitioners. But the Section 4(1) notification, according to the learned counsel, was not published in any well read newspapers, as a result, the petitioners were not aware of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.2.92, inasmuch as there was no local publication of the substance of the notification. It is not proper for the respondents, hence, to expect the petitioners to know about the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) in order to challenge the same in time. Therefore, aggrieved by the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petitions and the delay aspect should not come in their way to question the correctness of the aforesaid notifications.

(3.) ONE another judgment was also pressed into service in Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others, CDJ 2012 SC 711 to say that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government. In respect of the delay in publishing the award, it was contended that even if there is a delay of one day in passing the award, the entire land acquisition proceedings should be held as abated. In support of this contention, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.Rajamani v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2007 Writ L.R. 538 was relied upon. Finally, another judgment of the Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Schrawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1 MLJ 808 was heavily relied upon to say that it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive a person of his/her only dwelling house by way of acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Adding further, it was stated that the respondents, without realising that the petitioners are having one dwelling house each and majority of people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity, cannot be allowed to acquire the land of the petitioners and the said attempt should be held as illegal.