NATARAJA GOUNDER Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant challenged the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was vague as there was no local publication of the same in terms of Sec. 4(1) of the Act, that the Appellant's offer of alternate site must have been considered, and that the proper authority did not take possession of his land and therefore, no possession was taken in accordance with law.

(2.) The learned single Judge rejected the objection of the Appellant regarding vagueness on the ground that the Appellant understood the purpose for which his lands were acquired and had effectively raised his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer. As regards the publication of the notice under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the learned single Judge sustained the contention that there was no proper publication as mandated by the Act. The other two objections were also rejected. The learned single Judge, however, refused to set aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground of non-compliance of Sec. 4(1) of the Act, since on facts, the learned single Judge was satisfied that after 1994, possession was not with the Appellant and the lands had been distributed to the Adi Dravidars for whose benefit the lands were acquired.

(3.) Before us, the Appellant mainly reiterated the objection with reference to the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions relating to notice. Written submissions were also filed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant the learned Special Government Pleader.