SIVAPRAKASAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in all these writ petitions are inter -connected and inter -related besides common arguments have been advanced in all these cases, therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all the writ petitions herein are owners of agriculture lands measuring various extent situate in Kannankottai and Thervaikandigai Villages, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. According to the petitioners, even as early as in the year 2010, there was a proposal made by the respondents to acquire their lands for the purpose of formation of a new reservoir near Kannankottai and Thervaikandigai Villages. Even in the year 2012, officials of the Public Works Department have inspected their lands and informed that they are in the process of acquiring the lands for execution of the project. On 01.04.2012, a news item appeared in the local newspapers informing that the Government has sanctioned Rs.330 crores for drinking water reservoir which could store 1 TMC water. Therefore, the petitioners along with others have submitted a representation dated 09.09.2012 and requested to abandon the project as it would affect the livelihood of the entire Villagers. A further representation dated 10.09.2012 was also submitted to the Honourable Minister for Public Works Department to drop the proposal to acquire their lands. While so, after lapse of considerable time, the first respondent issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of The Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called as The Act, on 29.05.2013 to acquire 7.67.5 hectares of land in Kannankottai Village Block invoking the urgency provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act and to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was also published in the Government Gazzette on 15.07.2013. According to the petitioners, various other notifications in connection with the acquisition of lands have been issued on 29.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 18.06.2013, 15.07.2013, 18.07.2013, 25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013. Therefore, the land owners have jointly submitted a representation on 08.08.2013 to the respondents followed by another representation dated 24.09.2013 suggesting that there are alternative lands on the other side of the lake belonged to the Government i.e., Southern side and those lands could be utilised for the purpose of executing the project. The respondents, without regard to the representations and request made by the land owners have proceeded further to implement the project. Therefore, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions.

(3.) Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for most of the petitioners in the writ petitions, would vehemently contend that invocation of urgency provision as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act in the present case is unwarranted. The public purpose for which the project is sought to be implemented does not demand invocation of urgency clause thereby eliminating the mandatory enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act. The respondents have mooted the project even in the year 2011 and after two years, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued invoking the urgency clause without any necessity. The proposal to dispense with the mandatory enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act is not justifiable inasmuch as it deprives a valuable right vested with the land owners. In order to fortify this submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by LRs vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others) reported in 2012 (2) SCC 327 wherein it was held that the exceptional and extraordinary power of dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act is not a routine power and a greater degree of care must be taken by the State while invoking such power of compulsory acquisition.