P I LOURDUSAMY DIED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land bearing S. No. 151-2 in No. 116, Thirumangalam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, to the extent of 3.79 acres, has been succeeded to by the first petitioner, from his father. THE 1st petitioner died subsequent to the filing of the writ. After the death of the 1st petitioner, petitioners 2 to 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner. THE 1st petitioner hereinafter will be referred to as the petitioner in this order. THE petitioner also refers to a Will under which he had acquired the property. Out of the said extent of 3.79 acres, an extent of 2.80 acres were proposed to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the provision of house sites to the Adi-Dravidars of the village. THE notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2413, Social Wel fare dated 22-11-1985. It was published in the Gazette dated 4-12-1985. THE notification was published in ?THE Hindu? dated 31-12-1985 and the ?Dhina Thanthi? dated 23-12-1985. However, the publication in the village by tom tom and affixure of notice had taken place on 23-12-1985. THE petitioner had filed his objections and also appeared for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that his objections were not sent to the Requisitioning Department nor were the remarks o f the Requisitioning Department served on the petitioner. THE Declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms. No. 3294, Social Welfare, dated 22-12-1986. This was published in the Gazette on 26-12-1986 and in the Newspapers also on 26-12-1986. Section 6 Declaration was published in the locality on 29-12-1986. It is stated that an award has also been passed on 27-3-1989. THE acquisition proceedings are challenged on the following grounds:

(2.) SO far as the first objection is concerned, I have already referred to the dates of publication, and for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the same again. The S. 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 4-12-1985, in ?The Hindu?, dated 31-12-1985, in the ?Dhina Thanthi? dated 23-12-1985, and in the village by tom tom and affixure on 23-12-1985. The argument is that the publication in the village of the substance had taken place on 23-12-1985 even before the publication in the newspaper on 31-12-1985. Even here it may be pointed out that the publication in the Tamil daily was only on 23-12-1985. That apart, the decision of this Court in Rajagopal v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992(2) MLJ 404) only suggests that the other publications can occur only after the Gazette publication. To this extent, there is no violation in this case. I may also refer to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kumar Bhatia v. State (AIR 1993 Allahabad 14), which lays down the proposition that no particulars of sequence need be followed in the matter of publication of the S. 4(1) Notification. Consequently, the first point fails.