STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P PUSHPAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge dated 22. 09. 1999 made in W. P. No. 240 of 1996, the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing Board and the Special Tahsildar (LA) and Land Acquisition Officer, Neighbourhood Scheme, Nagercoil, have filed the above appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents-petitioners, the land bearing survey No. L. 5-7/7b to an extent of 0. 18. 81. 797 Ares in Vadiveeswaram Village, Agasteeswaram taluk, Kanyakumari District, belonged to the husband of the first petitioner-first respondent was sought to be acquired. Her husband died on 7. 08. 1985 leaving the petitioners viz. , his wife and two daughters, as his only legal representatives. Accordingly, they alone are entitled to the land in dispute. For implementation of the Neighbourhood Scheme, the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings and issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 11. 07. 1990. Later, the Government issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the Government Gazette on 02. 08. 1991. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that after the death of the first petitioner's husband, the revenue records were transferred in the name of the writ petitioners and patta was also issued in their names. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the fact that the revenue records were transferred in the name of the petitioners and the revenue records stood in their name, no notice was issued to them for an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. They were not aware of any enquiry. It is also their claim that except notice for award enquiry, they have not received any other notice or intimation. Finally, it is stated that since the writ petitioners are lawful owners even as per the revenue records, the respondents ought to have issued notice and afforded opportunity. They also contended that at every stage, the notification that was issued stood in the name of the dead person, i. e. husband of the first petitioner.

(3.) THE learned single Judge, on a perusal of the records, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners had participated in the enquiry and intimated the details regarding their ownership. However, even after such information, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made only in the name of the dead person. No doubt the petitioners received the notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act for award enquiry. However, the learned single Judge, after pointing out that since the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act stood in the name of the dead person, has allowed the writ petition.