M VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of setting up of Industrial Complex by SIPCOT, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by the respondents for the development of Tuticorin Harbour and for establishment of Industries by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No. 630, Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department, dated 10.5.1962 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, dated 16.5.1962 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in G.O. Ms. Nos.2830 and 2831, Industries, Labour and Housing, dated 23.12.1968, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, dated 8.1.1969 and the petitioners filed the Writ Petition Nos. 11561 to 11563 and 11585 of 1985 respectively questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings and the Writ Petitions were allowed by order of this Court dated 18.2.1991 and the acquisition proceedings were quashed, however, liberty was granted for issuing a fresh Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the respondents thereafter issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No. 131, Industries (MID II) Department, dated 12.8.1996 and published in the newspaper by name "Kinnas" and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.9.1996 and Section 5-A enquiry was held and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspaper by name "Madurai Mani", dated 11.12.1997 and the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings as illegal in the Writ Petition.

(3.) IN the cases pertaining to the decisions referred to above, this Court considered the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the same two Tamil Dailies, namely, "Kumari Murasu" and "Kinnas" and held that both the newspapers are published from Nagercoil and there is no evidence for circulation in the local area and hence the publication of the Notification in those newspapers in the locality, is not sufficient compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act. IN the present case also, the lands under acquisition are part of Meelavittan Village. Tuticorin Taluk and there is no evidence for circulation of the newspapers in the local area. IN the counter affidavit, the respondents have merely stated about the publication in those newspapers. IN such circumstances, publication of Notification in those newspapers, is not sufficient compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act. On this ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.