CHINNAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are directed against the decision of Mohan J, in W. P. Nos. 9511, 9512 and 9513 of 1982, sustaining the validity of the notification dated 4-8-1982, under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the consequential declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, so far as it relates to the lands belonging to the petitioner in each of the three writ petitions.

(2.) In G.O. Ms.No. 976 Industries Department dated 15-7-1981, the Government issued orders for acquisition of 913.77 acres of land (890.53 dry + 23,24 wet), under ordinary provisions of the Act in old Gummudipoondi village and other villages in Gummudipoondi taluk for setting up an industrial complex in Gummudipoondi in Chingleput district. The State Industries Promotion Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu, hereinafter called SIPCOT, stressed the need for the acquisition of the land under emergency clause by their letter No.37/8 dated 19-8-1981, to the Government and the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 694, Industries, dated 21-5-1982, directing the acquisition of lands under the urgency provisions in respect of waste arable lands and lands where there are no structures and in respect of the other lands under the ordinary provisions of the Act. Then the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 1043 Industries, dated 29-7-1982, containing notification under S.4(1), the consequential directions under S.17(1), the consequential direction under S.17(4) the consequential declaration under S.6 and the consequential direction under S.7 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of the lands of the petitioners and others. It is against the said notification dated 29-7-1982, the appellant filed writ petitions questioning the validity and contending- (1) that there is no justification for dispensing with the enquiry under S.5-A of the Act: (2) that the purpose of invoking the urgency provisions being to minimise the delay in the post-notification stage and put the lands in use within a reasonable period, the enquiry under S.5-A can be dispensed with only in case where there is real urgency which can brook no delay and these conditions are entirely absent in this case and as such directions under Ss.17(1) and 17(4) are illegal and arbitrary; (3) if the directions under Ss.17(1) and 17(4) are illegal, then the consequential declaration under S.6 is also illegal and void ; (4) the notification in so far as the declaration under S.6 proceeds on the basis that the compensation to be paid out of public revenue, which is incorrect statement and therefore, the declaration under S.6 is vitiated; (5) The impugned notification invoking the urgency clause is void for violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India in that the lands belonging to one A.V. Ramakrishnan and one A.M. Srinivasan, which are also vacant lands, the emergency provision has not been invoked and this indicates that the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition, the invocation of the urgency clause was justified as a correct decision taken by the Government, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the dire necessity to acquire the lands urgently for starting the industrial complex at Gummudipoondi and it was stated that no discrimination was shown between the petitioners and others whose lands are to be acquired as part of the scheme of acquisition.