V VARADHARASU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands of the appellant were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) (for short, 'the Act') for providing house sites to the people belonging to Adi Dravida community. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was given on 20.6.1994 and it was published in the gazatte on 5.7.1994 and later, a notice was also sent to the appellant by letter No.51-2/A3/93/DC-LA calling for his objections, if any. The appellant filed his objections to the second respondent in writing on 11.7.1994. He gave another representation on 7.9.1994 requesting the authorities to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. After sometime, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8.2.1995 proposing to acquire the above mentioned lands of the appellant. Challenging the acquisition proceedings, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the main contention that he was not served with a copy of the notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the letter dated 10.3.199 7 of the Village Administrative Officer indicates that the appellant refused to receive the notice and therefore, the notice was served by affixure and under the circumstances, the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that he was not served with notice for 5-A enquiry. This order is being challenged before us by the appellant in the writ appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge, submits that the procedure for service of notice, as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act, is mandatory and as the said procedure was not followed, the land acquisition proceedings are bad in law.

(3.) On the above contention, we have heard the learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry. The Government Pleader, Pondicherry, producing the file before us, which contains the letter of the Village Administrative Officer dated 10.3.1997 of Sandhaipudukuppam, submits that the letter indicates that though the Village Administrative Officer attempted to serve the notice on the appellant, he refused to receive the same and therefore, it was served by affixure and in the above circumstances, it cannot be contended that the appellant was not served with notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.