L VINAYAGAM Vs. STATE OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein have challenged a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the consequent declaration under Sec.6 thereof on the ground that as declared, the public purpose is the creation of a new neighborhood scheme known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Schemes, which is vague and thus never provided to the petitioner adequate opportunity to object to the acquisition. "The notification states,

(2.) FOLLOWING the previous judgments of this court in the case of Narayana Raju & 3 others v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990 TLNJ 358) and L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991 TLNJ 144) this petition has to be allowed and the notification quashed. I have, following the said two judgments, ordered in W.P. No.9590 of 1984 (order dated 19.7.1994) ( R. Thailai Ammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu ) accordingly that the public purpose as specified above is vague and thus does not satisfy the requirement of law.

(3.) IN Munshi Singh's case (AIR 1973 SC 1150) (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court interfered with the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act on the ground that it was vague and indefinite and on account of those defects the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired did not have a proper opportunity to file objections. The Supreme Court in the said case held that such a defective notification, which formed the basis of subsequent proceedings, could not be sustained, and held in agreement with the contention that if Sec.5-A enquiry had to serve any purpose, then it must be given full effect and that can be done only if the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired have an opportunity to submit their objections and those objections could only be submitted if the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act while mentioning the public purpose gave some definite indication or particulars of the said purpose which would enable the person concerned to object effectively, if so, desired. The Bench in A. Mohamed Yousuf's case (1990 2 MLJ 149 (supra) observed as follows: