SHARP TOOLS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised and referred to this Full Bench for clarification of the legal position is,

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to analyse the issue and answer the question before us, we deem it necessary to refer in brief the factual details in W. P. No. 17575 of 1995 for better understanding. For the purpose of construction of houses under the Neighbourhood Scheme in Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, in an extent of 11. 14. 0 Hectares, on the requisition of the 3rd respondent viz. , the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'central Act') was issued in G. O. Ms. No. 647, Housing and Urban Development (LA-II) dated 22. 9. 1992. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, and eleven others are the owners of an extent of 1. 84 acres situated in S. F. No. 332/2b in Kalapatti village, Coimbatore North Taluk, having purchased the same on 04. 09. 1985 for a valuable consideration. This property forms part of the property in respect of which Section 4 (1) notification was issued as referred supra. According to the petitioner/firm, it was founded in the year 1964 and is engaged in the manufacture of Monoblock pumps and special purpose machineries and it had been in active business in its field for over 30 years and has in its employment about 130 workers. The petitioner, in fact, desired to construct its own guest house and after purchase, fenced the entire extent with barbed wires and had also applied with the authorities concerned, seeking sanction for putting up construction. G. O. Ms. No. 647 issued with reference to Section 4 (1) Notification is dated 22. 09. 1992 and the same was gazetted on 14. 10. 1992. On 15. 10. 1992 and 21. 10. 1992, the said Notification was published in two local News-papers viz. , 'makkal Kural' and 'namadhu MGR', which are not circulated widely in that area. On 23. 01. 1993, the petitioner received notice with reference to the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Objections were filed on 12. 2. 1993 and the enquiry was held on 15. 2. 1993. The objections were forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent and the remarks received by the 2nd respondent were forwarded to the petitioner on 08. 03. 1993. Subsequent to that date, there was no enquiry. Section-6 declaration was issued in G. O. Ms. No. 967 dated 08. 12. 1993. The procedure contemplated under Rule-4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'rules') has not been followed and, that apart, Section-6 Declaration came to be issued after the prescribed period viz. , one year after the Section-4 (1) Notification. Award enquiry was conducted thereafter and ultimately, on 08. 12. 1995, the 2nd respondent passed the award. It is contended that the award was not passed within two years from the date of Section-6 Declaration as contemplated under Section-11a of the Act. In the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of R-1 and R-2, the respondents had endeavoured to explain the claim that the 2nd respondent strictly adhered to the procedure laid down under the Act. According to the 2nd respondent, apart from the publication in the gazette and Newspapers, public notice of the substance of such notification at the convenient places in the said locality was made on 11. 12. 1992. It is stated that the objections raised by the land owners were duly communicated to the requisitioning body ie. , the 3rd respondent herein, and the remarks received from the 3rd respondent were communicated to the land owners including the petitioner. It is on the basis of the remarks of the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the objections were over-ruled, Section 5-A (2) proceedings were issued and result of the enquiry was communicated to the land owner on 31. 5. 1993. Only after examining the merits of the objection and remarks of the requisitioning body, Draft Declaration under Section-6 of the Act was approved by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 967, dated 08. 12. 1993. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent proceeded further into the matter and, after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act, passed the award on 08. 12. 1995. As far as the claim made by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent failed to conduct any enquiry after sending remarks of the requisitioning body viz. , 3rd respondent, to the petitioner on 08. 03. 1993, it is contended that since the petitioner made its objection long after the prescribed period, the 2nd respondent is not duty bound to consider the same. Even otherwise, the 2nd respondent did not act solely on the remarks received from the requisitioning body, but it also considered the merits of the claims made by the petitioner.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, though the learned Judge determined four questions for consideration, we are concerned only with the 4th question, which reads as follows:-