SAVITHIRIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 07. 02. 2004, made in W. P. 18730 of 1996, in and by which, the learned Judge quashed the declaration issued under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act and permitted the Government to proceed further by issuing another Declaration under Section-6 within the prescribed time limit. Not satisfied with the limited relief granted, the Writ Petitioner has filed the above Appeal.

(2.) HEARD Mr. A. S. Vijayaragavan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant is the daughter of one Thiruvenkatasamy, who owned lands in S. Nos. 267/5 and 268/3, Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore Taluk. According to him, the said lands and other surrounded lands were sought to be acquired at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses under Ganapathi Neighbourhood scheme, Phase-II. It is further pointed out that the petitioner's father Thiruvenkatasamy died way back on 06. 3. 1987, however, Notification under Section 4 (1), which was published in the Government Gazette on 14. 06. 1995, was issued in the name of the said Thiruvenkatasamy-dead person. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner/appellant, on hearing the news that the authorities are taking steps to acquire her father's lands, submitted her objection, wherein, it is specifically stated that her father died long back leaving behind herself as the only legal heir. She also mentioned that the notice/notification issued on dead person is illegal, improper and void. She further stated that though this aspect was specifically pointed out during the 5-A enquiry, even in the subsequent declaration, the respondents did not carry out necessary changes and issued the same only in the name of dead person, ie. , Thiruvenkatasaamy. In such circumstances, according to the counsel, the learned Judge, having accepted the case of the petitioner, ought to have quashed the entire proceedings including Notification under Section 4 (1 ).