V CHANDRAKANTH ARCADIA ST GEORGE HOMES ROAD, KETTI, NILGIRIS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that she had purchased the property bearing S.No.188/5, Tiruvanmiyur Village, measuring an extent of 32 cents under Document No.191/74, dated 31.07.1974. A patta was issued to her for the said property on 16.11.1974 and her name was entered in the Revenue Register. The petitioner further submits that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire an extent of 275 acres in Tiruvanmiyur and Kottivakkam Village was issued and the same was gazetted on 19.02.1974 and 26.03.1975. During the relevant period, the petitioner was a student of Kilpauk Medical College and she was staying in a hostel. Her parents were away in Malaysia. Thereafter, in December 1978, a notice was issued under the Urban Land Tax Act for enquiry and in January 1979, an order was passed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that in March 1983, for the first time a notice was sent in her name to her maternal uncle's address who received it and informed her of the same. The notice was under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, stating that the lands owned by the petitioner had been acquired and she was called upon to attend an enquiry for passing an Award. Since the petitioner was away in UK and Malaysia, in 1983, she requested her father-in-law to be her Power of Attorney in India and to take appropriate steps for challenging the acquisition. A writ petition bearing W.P.No.9484 of 1983 was filed for setting aside the acquisition. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was wrongly averred by the petitioner's father-in-law that a patta had not been issued. However, in the year 1991, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition stating that she had been granted a patta bearing No.211 on 16.11.1974 and that the property stood in her name in the Revenue Register since then. The petitioner also raised an additional ground that the notification purporting to acquire her land was vague. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was categorically averred that no notice had been received under Section 5(A). In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, an averment was made that in the notifications issued, Mrs.Ranganayaki Ammal, the erstwhile owner of the land had been shown as an interested person, since the patta stood in her name. It was also admitted that the draft declaration under Section 6 was also issued in her name and it was only at the stage when notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were being prepared, verification was made at the Sub-Registrar's Office and it was found that the petitioner had purchased the land, as early as in 1974, and hence, notices were sent to her.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that the averments aforesaid made by the respondents are totally false and it is obvious that they had taken advantage of the averment wrongly made by the petitioner's father-n-law in his affidavit, that the patta had not been transferred to the petitioner's name. A perusal of the Revenue Records would very clearly show that the patta had been transferred to the name of the petitioner as early as on 16.11.1974. The petitioner further submits that 4(1) Notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition did not show the name of the petitioner as the owner of the land in question. It has also been admitted by the respondents in the earlier proceedings that no notice had been issued to the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner further submits that W.P.No.9484 of 1983 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.04.1991 on the ground that "the ratio laid down in the judgment in W.P.No.10474 of 1982 clearly covered the issues raised. The petitioner understands that the judgment in W.P.No.10474 of 1982 dealt with the question whether the impugned notification was vague and this Court came to the conclusion that since the notification was bereft of details, it was vitiated by vagueness. As the lands in question were covered by similar notifications, the Division Bench applied the ratio of the judgment in W.P.No.10474 of 1982 and set-aside the acquisition. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition viz., W.P.No.9484 of 1983 were not decided on merits since the writ petition was allowed on a larger question. The respondents filed SLP (Civil) 13725 of 1992. The Special Leave Petition dealt with the ground of vagueness and the scope of Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. A counter was filed by the petitioner reiterating the allegation that no notice had ever been served on her and that her name was entered in the Revenue Register as early as on 16.11.1974. The petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition holding that the notification was not vague. The other issues raised by the petitioner regarding the non-service of notice under Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the entire proceedings commencing from Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act stood vitiated, were not considered on merits. The petitioner further submits that though the patta had been transferred to the petitioner's name as early as 16.11.1974, the respondents herein had not considered her as the owner of the lands in question till after the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed. The petitioner further submits that the failure on the part of the respondents to verify the Revenue Records properly vitiates the entire proceedings. The petitioner is advised to state that this Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1977 MAD 272 has held that failure to mention the name of the owner in a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vitiated the entire proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the significance of an enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act has observed as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner further submits that on several occasions viz., 23.01.1992, 30.11.1992 and 20.03.1992, the petitioner has requested the second respondent herein to drop the proceedings. She had also requested the first respondent by a registered letter on 20.03.1992 to drop the proceedings. However, no reply has been received so far. The petitioner further submits that between 06.10.1983 and 28.06.1988, the following lands viz., S.Nos.169/1A, 169/1C, 169/2A1, 169/2A2, 210/5, 70/3, 84/6A, 106/38, 104/4 and 78/2-D that had been acquired were released from acquisition for reasons best known to the respondents. The petitioner is also advised to state that the failure on the part of the respondents to act on the representation made by her for dropping the proceedings, especially when the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with, is totally contrary and violative of her rights under Article 17 of the Constitution of India. The acquisition is also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. The petitioner further submits that between 1983 when she first came to know of the acquisition and November 1995 when the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced, the petitioner has been agitating the matter before Courts of competent jurisdiction. As stated earlier, between 1974 and 1979, the petitioner was a student of Kilpauk Medical College. In December 1978, a notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act was issued to the petitioner for an enquiry, which was duly attended. In January 1979, an order of assessment was passed in the petitioner's name after the Urban Land Tax Assistant Commissioner verified the original document and the original patta. This is clearly stated by the Urban Land Tax Assistant Commissioner in his order. During March / April 1979, the petitioner received a demand notice for payment of urban land tax which was also duly paid. All these factors led the petitioner to believe that she continued to be the owner of the land and she had no knowledge whatsoever of the acquisition proceedings. It was only in 1983 when a notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, the petitioner became aware of the proceedings and immediately thereafter, she approached this Hon'ble Court for redressal. The petitioner's absence from India from 1981 would also confirm the petitioner's allegation that she could not have had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner states that she is not guilty of laches for the aforesaid reasons. On the contrary, the petitioner has been alert and has approached the Court at the first opportunity. The petitioner further submits that this is the only property she owns in Chennai.