STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. N THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "This writ appeal is filed by the Government against the order made in W.P. No. 6667 of 1973. In this writ petition the petitioner herein (respondent herein) prayed for the quashing on the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. By the said proceedings the land of the respondent here in was sought to be acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu. The acquisition was notified under section 4 (1) of the Act in the Ofticial Gazette on 18th July, 1973. The substance of the notification, however, was not published in the locality where the land is situated till as late as 24th September, 1973. Hence the respondent herein came to Court by way of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification under section 4 (1). The learned single Judge of this Court quashed the notification holding that the substance of the notification had not been stimultanaously published in the locality where the land is situated. It is as against this order the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT is clear from the facts of the casethat the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the land in question was published in the . gazette on 18th July, 1973, but the substance of the notification regarding the acquisition of the land was published in the locality where the land is situated only on 24th September, 1973. In Narinderjit Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 2 S.C.J, 378: (1973) 1 S.C.C. 157: A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 552, the Supreme Court has held that, where the Collector fails to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired is situated, the whole acquisition proceedings are vitiated. While discussing this aspect of the case, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "Section 4 (1) does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power under section 17 (4) the appropriate Government directs that the provisions of section 5-A shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability of section 5-A. IT lays down in unequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be simultaneously doneunder section 4 (1), i.e., a notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and the Collector has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such notification at convenient place in the locality in which the land is situated". Thus there has been a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and as such the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act is vitiated. We are therefore in complete agreement with the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.