AMBROSE NADAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings challenged are under the Land Acquistion Act (I of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the "Act". The purpose of acquisition is the formation of an approach road. Mr.R. Balasubra-maniam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would urge three points covering admission of this writ petition. Firstly, learned Counsel would submit that even prior to the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners were asked to sell the lands and they declined and only thereafter, the acquisition proceedings have been taken. From this, it is not possible to hold that the acquisition proceedings themselves are incompetent. Secondly, learned Counsel would submit that the local publication of the substance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was not made either simultaneously or contemporaneously. It is stated in ground No.(i) in the affidavit filed, in support of the writ petition that the local publication was made after a period of nearly one month after the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Apart from this, no prejudice is pleaded on account of this alleged time lapse. No specific date is given. Whatever that be, the lapse of time and interval are not much so as to hold that the provisions of the statute were not duly satisfied. Certainly, the parties cannot be stated to have been in a state of uncertainty for an unduly long time. Thirdly, learned Counsel would contend that the State has made only a token contribution of Rs.0.05p. The acquisition is to serve a public purpose, to wit, for the formation of an approach road to a residential colony. Merely because the contribution made out of public revenue is meagre or even token in character, that cannot be taken exception to state that the provisions have not been satisfied. It would suffice the purpose if reference is mads to the pronouncement of this Court in Yogyam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Commr. and Secy, to Govt. Housing Dept. Madras and another, W.P.Nos.470 to 472 of 1979. Dt.13.10.1981. I am not able to appreciate and sustain any of the points urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.