P SONGAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER; TAHSILDAR; SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned land acquisition Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, 'The Act'] in G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 24.06.2011 passed by the first respondent published in Dinamalar Daily News Paper dated 26.06.2011 and subsequently the prayer was amended to quash the declaration also issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.50, (Energy-C1) dated 07.07.2011 insofar as the petitioner's land measuring an extent of 0.03.0 Hec. in S.No.151/3, an extent of 0.03.0 Hec in S.No.151/5 and an extent of 0.04.0 Hec.in Survey No.151/1B of Solasiramani Village, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District is concerned.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the lands in question. According to the petitioner, a proposal was submitted to the District Collector to acquire an extent of 1.86.0 hectares in S.Nos.146, 151 and 152 for the purpose of construction of Bhavani Kattalai Barrage III. It is his further case that on 03.02.2006, a contract was awarded for construction of power house and possession was handed over to the said contractor on 22.02.2006 on the basis of the undisclosed pre-entry permission obtained from the land owners on 24.10.2002. The petitioner objected to the entry by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 2007 by filing a police complaint; in view of the same a revised plan schedule was submitted to the District Collector to acquire only an extent of 1.60.0 hectares of land in S.Nos.146,151 and 152 after excluding an extent of 0.22.0 hectares in S.No.152. Since the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board wanted to lay a temporary road in the petitioner's land in S.No.151/4, the petitioner raised an objection. For the first time, for the acquisition of lands in question, emergency provision under Section 17(2) of the Act was issued under G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 28.08.2010. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.47 was issued on 24.06.2011 under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Section 6 declaration was passed on 07.07.2011 and consequently, the award was also passed on 15.07.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is that before invoking the emergency provision under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Act. However, the same was not given. He would further submit that even assuming that there is an urgency for taking possession under 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act, by excluding the operation of Section 6 Declaration and the time mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act, the same would not by itself give raise to the required urgency to avoid an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Accordingly, he would pray for quashing the very Section 4(1) Notification and the consequential Section 6 Declaration.