B. HANIFA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the notification of the 5th respondent in G.O.Ms.No.2286 dated 06.09.1983 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the consequential proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.1638/07/A1 dated 26.04.2007 and quash the same as illegal and incompetent. Initially, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the above said proceedings of the second respondent (Special Tahsildar, ADW, Chengalpet) dated 26.04.2007 alone, in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.59/4A2 in Vayalur village arraying 1) the District Collector, Kancheepuram, 2) Special Tahsildar (ADW), Chengalpet and 3) Tahsildar, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District alone, ranking them as Respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent Shanmugasundaram filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1/2008 for getting impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition on the ground that he is one of the beneficiaries of the Scheme for which the land acquisition concerned in the writ petition was made. He also wanted to be impleaded himself as a party to represent the interest of other beneficiaries of the Scheme. The said petition was allowed and he was impleaded as 4th respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , the proceedings in Na.Ka.1638/07/A1 dated 26.04.2007 of the second respondent, which was nothing but a notice issued under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 directing surrender of possession of the land acquired for the public purpose to the Land Acquisition Officer within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice and informing that in case of failure, steps would be taken for taking possession in accordance with law alone was challenged. As the said Possession Notice issued under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was based on an award of the second respondent made in his award No.2/84 85 dated 30.03.1985 it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition challenging the notice under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act without challenging the award would not be maintainable. Hence, the petitioner chose to implead the State Government as 5th respondent in the writ petition and amended the prayer by including a prayer for quashing of section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.2286 dated 06.09.1993 also. However, while seeking such an amendment in M.P.No.5/2008, the petitioner had wrongly given the date of the Government Order as 06.09.1993 instead of 06.09.1983, even though the number of the government order has been correctly given as 2286.

(3.) AS pointed out supra, after the filing of the writ petition with the prayer for quashing the notice issued by the third respondent under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act alone, the petitioner chose to amend the prayer by seeking the relief of quashing Section 4(1) Notification also, mainly because it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the notice issued under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act could not be challenged without assailing acquisition proceedings. That is the reason why the petitioner has chosen to seek quashing of G.O.Ms.No.2286 dated 06.09.1983 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1638/07/A1 dated 26.04.2007. While doing so, the petitioner has given a wrong date of the government order as "06.09.1993" instead of "06.09.1983".