S. SIVAPRAKASA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17th September 1958, the State Government by a Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act to acquire a large tract of land measuring about acres in Kodambakkam area for the purpose of rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in Kanniappanagar and other slum areas in the City of Madras. By the same notification and indeed as part of it, the Government in exercise of their powers Under Section 17(4) of the Act, dispensed with the provision of Section 5 -A of the Act as the proposed acquisition, their opinion was an urgent one. The notification mentioned above was in due course followed by publication Under Section 6. that was on 26th November 19bb. sometime later notices were issued to the various owners Under Section 9(3) calling upon them, to file their claims for compensation. it appears that there were some objections to the acquisition before the Government and it took some time for them to consider and dispose of the same, the appellant owns 2.44 acres of wet lands in S. no. 154 in the area proposed to be acquired; that was subject 10 a mortgage created by him in favour of one jambunnga Mudaliar. Like other owners of land in the locality cut appellant filed his claim for compensation. compensation was fixed by the Special Deputy Collector for land acquisition, who by his notice dated 18th January 1961 intimated his award to the mortgagee that a sum of its. 1,6836 had been awarded as compensation for 2.44 acres of land in s. No. 154. soon thereatfer the appellant was called upon to deliver possession of the property, it was at that stage, i. e. nearly three years after the notification under Section 4(i) of the Act, that he and a number of other owners tiled applications under Article 226 or the Constitution to this court to quash the notification relating to the acquisition of the land.

(2.) THE substantial ground urged in support of the applications was this : the intended purpose of the scheme had failed as the slum dwellers for whose Benefit the lands were sought to be acquired refused to move into the scheme area; the State Housing Board in whom the lands stood vested proceeded however to allot bounding sites in the area to persons belonging to the low and middle income groups that amounted to a diversion of the original purpose which the Government had no authority to 10.

(3.) THE learned Judge, however, declared that the rest of the notification would be valid. Having due regard to that decision the Government intimated the court in these cases that they are willing to withdraw that portion of the notification which applied the emergency provisions Under Section 1/(4) of the Act. In so doing, it cannot be said that the Government had sufficient regard for what had transpired already namely, the publication of the various notifications, the passing of the award etc. However, that withdrawal meant that the Government had an open mind on the question whether the acquisition was for a pubic purpose, presumably they were willing to consider all those objections that could be filed under S. S -A. If that were to be so, and if as a result of the representations the Government were to hold that the original acquisition was not for a public purpose what would happen to all that had been done i. e., what would be the position of the persons who had applied for allotment of sites, in that area, obtained them and spent monies thereon are matters which do not appear to have been considered. that is only by the way.