SALAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notification reference No. 27, published in page 3 of the Chengalpattu MGR District Gazette Extraordinary dated 4. 4. 1996 relating to the petitioner's lands measuring 1. 42. 0 Hectares situated in S. F. No. 156/1a. 1b in 24 Sathrunjayapuram Village in Tiruttani Taluk of Chengalpattu M. G. R. District quash the said notice and forbear the respondents from in any manner acquiring or interfering with the petitioner's above said land.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of dry land measuring 1. 42. 0 Hectares comprised in S. F. No. 156/1a-1b in 24 Satarunjayapuram Village in Tiruttani Taluk of CHengalpattu M. G. R. District; that it is part of 3. 08. 5 Hectares situate in Survey No. 156 owned by her consisting of S. F. No. 156/1a1, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b and sub field 1a1 consisting of 2. 57. 0 Hectares; that since a part of lands in middle of these lands bounded on the east and west of her lands is sought to be acquired, this land has no access to the road in east and cut off the access to the road.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that she was served with a notice by third respondent in Form III, under Rule 5 (1) dated 30. 8. 1996/6. 9. 1996 and she met the Collector, the Second respondent herein and submitted her reply to the Collector on 20. 9. 1996 objecting to the acquisition and proceedings and that the Collector assured that favourable orders would be passed and communicated to her, but so far as she has not received any reply; that now the third respondent is going to implement the notification and take possession of this land; that the respondents have failed to see that under the act a notice to the petitioner under section 4 (2) of this Act is mandatory before any action under section 4 (1) is taken, but the petitioner has not received any such notice and the notification also does not refer to any such notice and hence, on this ground the above notification is liable to be quashed; that further the object set out in the notice is vague and devoid of details and it does not specify the objects in precise terms.