MOHANA SUNDARI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as set out hereunder. The subject matter of the lands belonging to the petitioners are notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.647 Housing and Urban Development (LA-II) dated 22.9.1992 and a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.967 Housing and Urban Development (LA-3-2) dated 8.12.1993. The land measuring an extent of 1.34 acres situate at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District in SF No.332/2B was purchased by the petitioners on 4.9.1985. After the purchase was made they could not do cultivation due to non-availability of water and irrigation and infact, the primary intention of the petitioners was to use the lands as residential houses for their personal use. At this stage, a notification came to be issued and an enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted and a declaration under Section 6 was issued and finally an award was also passed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated inasmuch as Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter called as the 'Rules') is violated and the procedure contemplated therein was not followed. He has contended that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 22.9.1992 and Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 29.1.1993 and subsequently the petitioner has submitted his objection on 12.2.1993; that the petitioners' objection was forwarded on 31.5.1993 to the requisition body viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and even though the copy of the remarks was subsequently forwarded to the petitioners on 31.5.1993, no further enquiry was held thereafter by the Land Acquisition Officer and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 8.12.1993 was issued which is against the principles of natural justice and violation of Rule 4(b). The learned counsel has also submitted that the enquiry which took place under Section 5-A cannot be construed to be in strict compliance of Rule 4(b) of the Rules inasmuch as a further enquiry was not conducted after forwarding the remarks of the requisition body to the petitioners. The learned counsel has contended that this Court has rendered number of decisions on earlier occasion holding that failure on the part of the land acquisition Officer to conduct a further enquiry after furnishing the remarks of the requisition body is in total violation of Rule 4(b) of the rules viz., rule 3(b) of the old rules as existed prior to amendment on 11.6.1991. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Real Estates Ltd and 11 others vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, etc. and 2 others (2002 Writ L.R. 1). The learned counsel has also contended that the land owners are not expected to submit their objections immediately after the notification of Section 4(1) in the official gazette, inasmuch as the said notification does not disclose to whom the objections could be forwarded. It is further contended that only as and when a notice in Form-A issued under rule 2 of the rules is served upon the land owners, which contain the name of the authority, the objections could not be submitted to the concerned Officer. The learned counsel has contended that in view of the above, the land owners cannot be faulted for their failure to submit their objections within the time stipulated, viz., 30 days from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. It is also contended that there was no proper publication in the locality and as such, the land owners were not given sufficient opportunity to submit their objections.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Housing Board have submitted that immediately after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 22.9.1992, the same was published in the Official Gazette on 14.10.1992 and wide publicity was given in two leading dailies on 15.10.1992 and 21.10.1992 and the substance of the notification was also published in the locality on 11.12.1992. The notification was issued for the construction of houses for lower income group and middle income group under Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme and the petitioners' lands are situate at the vantage point of the proposed scheme and the exclusion of the same would adversely affect the comprehensive nature of the layout. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 29.1.1993, 8.2.1993 and 16.2.1993 and the first petitioner submitted his objection on 15.2.1993. In fact, the 11th petitioner has originally submitted a letter on 29.1.1993 to the effect that the objections will be submitted on behalf of all the owners on 12.2.1993. In Section 5-A enquiry, the 11th petitioner appeared on 16.2.1993 and raised the objections as per the statement submitted by him and other petitioners as stated above. The objections raised by the land owners were communicated to the requisition body viz., the Housing Board and thereafter the Executive Engineer and the Administrative Officer after due inspection and discussion, has submitted his remarks on 8.3.1993 which was communicated to the land owners and thereafter, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has passed final orders under Section 5-A (2) of the Act on 11.5.1993 which was served upon the petitioners on 31.5.1993 and subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be passed on 8.12.1993. Subsequently, an award enquiry was conducted and notices were served under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act and enquiry was conducted on 1.12.1995 and finally an award was passed on 8.12.1995 in Award No.5 of 1995.