A SOUNDARAPANDIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of 21 cents of land comprised in survey No. 84/6AIA 2 situated at No. 140 Thiruvanmiyur village, presently Mylapore Triplicane taluk, and Madras district. This plot of land forms part of an approved lay out sanctioned in LPDM/DTP, 75/1964. D/4-8-1964 by the Director of Town Planning which also forms part of the plan approved by the Thiruvanmiyur Town Panchayat in its reference No. 96 of 1964, dated 27-8-1964 as plots Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner became the owner by purchase under a registered sale deed dated 5th Dec., 1966 from one G. Seth Jesudasan, son of GnanaPrakasa Achariar who in his turn purchased the same forming part of the large extent from his brother G. Bernard under a registered sale deed dated 5-1-1969. The patta concerning this land came to be transferred in favour of the petitioner on 11-6-1977. As a matter of fact, the petitioner produced the patta issued in his favour for fasli 1386. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were taken to acquire an extent of 96.92 acres in Thiruvanmiyur village, including the petitioner's land.

(2.) The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was made in G. 0, Ms. No. 1096 Housing and Urban Development, dated 17-7-1978. It was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Supplement to Part II-S. 2, at pages 5 to 9 dated 9-8-1978. The purpose of acquisition as stated under Section 4(1) notification was for a public purpose, to wit, for development of the area as Besant Nagar Phase 11 Scheme. The name of the interested Persons relating to 5 to 84/6-A measuring 6.45 acres was published as K. T. Stephen. The notice under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under S. 55(1) of the Act, dated 2-2-1979, was published at the Corporation Middle School, Thiruvanmiyur, and in the office notice boards of the Taluk Office, Saidapet, Police Station at Thiruvanmiyur and the village munsif of Thiruvanmiyur on 9-2-1979, 10-2-1979 and 11-2-1979, respectively. The individual notice relating to Thiru Stephen was served by affixture on the land by way of tying it in the stick planted on the land in question by the village munsif on 10-2-1979. This has because the whereabouts of the said Stephen were not known to the revenue officials. Several persons who had purchased plots in this survey No. 84/6 preferred their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, which took place on 26-2-1979 and they were duly enquired, The objections were forwarded to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board for remarks on 15-31979. A Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras, the Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras, and the Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Madras, inspected the lands notified for acquisition to consider the objections raised by the land owners at the time of enquiry under Section 5-A. Pursuant to recommendations of the said committee, it was resolved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its resolution No. 500, dated 12-121979 to exclude the built up portion only and the monument in S. No. 82 part and to acquire the remaining vacant land area,9 including those in survey No. 84/6 (part). As a result, an extent of 2.691/2 acres in S. No. 84/6-A was excluded. The cancellation notification was duly published on 8-81981. It was found that at the time of the submission of the draft declaration that some plot owners had not sub divided their plots subsequent to the submission of the notification under Section 4(1) and got separate pattas in S. No. 84/6-A. At the stage, the petitioner by a letter dated 4-12-1979, addressed to the 4th respondent, represented by its Chairman, with a copy marked to the second respondent, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Neighborhood Scheme, Saidapet, Madras, requested the exemption of his plot measuring 21 cents in S. No. 84/6AIA2. He had also stated that patta had been issued to him earlier under patta No. 1115. However, nothing was done concerning this. Therefore, the draft declaration under Section 6 was issued for an extent of 1.32 acres including the subject matter of this writ petition viz., 21 cents owned by the petitioner. The declaration was approved in G. 0. Ms. 667 Housing and Urban Development, dated 6-8-1981, and the same was published at pages 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part 11 S. 2 dated 8-8-1981. It may be stated at this stage that Section 6 declaration contained the name of the petitioner presumably because of the petitioner's petition dated 4-12-1979. The petitioner came up to this Court by means of this writ petition for petitioner Mandamus to quash the declaration under Section 6 and also the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Raju, is that the petitioner did not have any notice whatever of the acquisition proceedings. When the power of eminent domain is exercised for compulsorily acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner, the least that one could expect will be the notice, but such a notice was not given. The Revenue records disclose that long before Section 4(1) notification came to be issued, the petitioner had been given a patta on 11-6-1977. Where, therefore, the revenue records bore the name of the petitioner under patta No. 1115, there is absolutely no justification f or excluding him under Section 4(1) notification. The Supreme Court and this Court have taken the Jew that the right to make representation during the inquiry under S. 5-A is very valuable right. No person can be deprived of such a valuable right. If it is so done, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner is being deprived of his property without he having any say in the matter. It is no consolation to say that Section 6 declaration contained the name of the petitioner. It is well settled that such a declaration crystallizes the rights of the parties more so in view of the presumption contained to such a declaration as stated in Section 6 sub-sec. (3) of the Act. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the ruling of mine reported in Bhama Ramamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu,