PADMAVATHI AND BHEEMA RAJA Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., Writ Petitions Nos. 746 and 889 of 1972, in each of which there is a single petitioner who challenges the acquisition of his land situated in Coimbatore town. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by a notification, dated the 15th of April, 1970 issued under Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Notices of the proposed acquisition were published in conformity with Rule (1) of the rules framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 55(1) of the Act, but no notice thereof was served individually on either of the petitioners and it is contended on their behalf that the acquisition proceedings are void for want of such notices which it was incumbent on the Collector to serve as per instruction (1) contained in paragraph 9 of Standing Order 90 issued by the Board of Revenue. That instruction states:

(2.) ATTENTION of Palaniswamy, J., was drawn to Associated Equipment Services v. State of Madras W.P. No. 1734 of 1964, decided by Ramakrishnan, J., and Meclec Nutriments and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Madras W.P. No. 1846 of 1965, decided by Kailasam, J. (as his Lordship then was), in both of which it was held that the Act did not prescribe as an obligatory direction that notice be given for an enquiry under Section 5A thereof to particular persons individually. Each one of these cases was distinguished by Palaniswamy, J., on the ground that the instruction above extracted was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided the same. As it is, learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Coimbatore who are the two respondents before me, has contended that Easwara Pillai's case 2, was not correctly decided and that the instruction above extracted is neither statutory in character nor liable to be enforced in writ proceedings on the basis of principles of natural justice. Reliance for this contention is placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Ghousia Begum v. Union Territory, Pondicherry : AIR1975Mad345 , which repeats the dictum given by Ramakrishnan, J., and Kailasam, J., in the cases above cited, although no reference therein also is made to the said instruction. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length I have begun to entertain doubts (and I say so with the utmost respect to Palaniswamy, J.) about the correctness of the decision in Easwara Pillai's case : (1972)1MLJ92 , although 1 have not formed any definite opinion in that behalf. The points raised are not free from difficulty and are of great general importance. I consider the cases before me, therefore, to be fit ones for decision by a larger Bench and direct that their records be laid before my lord the Chief Justice with a request that such a Bench may be constituted.

(3.) THESE two writ petitions come before us on a reference by Koshal, J. Each is filed by a different individual. But both raise a common question of law under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.