UMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21. 11. 2001 made in W. P. No. 7604 of 2000, in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the writ petition came to be filed well after passing of the award on 25. 04. 2000.

(2.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) MR. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us through various details furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition as well as the details culled out from the files produced by the learned Government Advocate contended that Section 4 (1) notification issued by the respondents cannot be sustained, since the same was issued in the name of her grand father Kichama Naidu, who was no more on the relevant date. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, notification was issued in the name of a dead person. It is also his claim that even on the date of 4 (1) notification, the revenue records show the name of the writ petitioner / appellant, in such circumstances, it is but, proper on the part of the respondents to issue notification in the name of the petitioner/appellant and ought to have issued notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. He also contended that though a statement was made before the learned Judge that an award was passed on 05. 11. 1999 and writ petition came to be filed only on 25. 04. 2000, which is well after the passing of the award, the learned Judge while accepting the statement of the learned Government Advocate, dismissed the writ petition. Learned senior counsel for the appellant from the file produced by the learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that no award has been passed at any time. Even today, according to him, the files disclose that the proposal of the award to be passed, which was sent to the authority concerned for approval. In the absence of passing of an award by the authority concerned, namely, Land Acquisition Officer, it cannot be claimed that award has been passed by the authority merely on the basis of the same proceeding is pending on the higher authority for approval. It is not in dispute that the statement made before the learned Judge, which is available in para 3 of the order of the learned Judge is factually incorrect. In so far as the first contention, learned Government Advocate fairly admits that on the relevant date of 4 (1) notification, the revenue record show the name of the petitioner / appellant as rightful owner of the land in question. However, the notification was issued in the name of her grand father, who even according to the respondent was not alive. On this ground, the entire acquisition proceeding is liable to be quashed. Coming to the second contention, admittedly, the information furnished to the learned Judge regarding award said to have been passed on 05. 11. 1999, is factually incorrect, the files produced by the learned Government Advocate show that no award has been passed by the Officer authorised to pass till this date. In such circumstances, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the same came to be filed after passing of the award as claimed by the learned Government Advocate and as concluded by the learned single Judge. The information furnished from the records we hold that the second respondent has not passed award in terms of the provisions of the Act. Though in the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the appellant, during the pendency of this appeal has filed miscellaneous petition for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition seeking for quashing of entire acquisition proceedings commencing from Section 4 (1) notification. Though learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the said miscellaneous petition has been numbered, no such petition is before us. However, in view of the infirmity as we pointed out in the earlier part of our order, viz. , that 4 (1) notification was issued in the name of a dead person, though the revenue records contains the name of the petitioner/appellant as the rightful owner on the date of notification, we inclined to quash the notification issued under Section 4 (1) also. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge dated 21. 11. 2001 made in W. P. No. 7604 of 2000 is set aside and the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. It is made clear that if the respondents so desire, they are free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.