DEVIVANAI AMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in G. O. R. No. 125, housing dated 8. 5. 1975 published on 11. 6. 1975 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G. O. Ms. No. 980 Housing dated 7. 6. 1978 published on 9. 6. 1978 by quashing the said notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 99/1, 99/2 and 9/2 of an total extent of 2. 23 acres in valasaravakkam village, Saidapet taluk.

(2.) THE subject matter of the land covered in the writ petition belongs to the writ petitioners. Government of Tamil Nadu by a notification dated 8. 5. 1975 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as'theact') proposed to acquire lands of a large extent of 303. 05 acres in Valasaravakkam village including the petitioners'land referred to above, for Karunanidhi Nagar Part-II Scheme at the instance of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes. THE notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazetee on 11. 6. 1975 and the declaration under section 6 was published and the draft declaration and direction under Sections 6 and 7 were approved in G. O. Ms. 980, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7. 6. 1978 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9. 6. 1978. THE petitioners'father raised an objection against the proposed acquisition. According to the petitioners, enquiry as contemplated under Section 5a of the Act read with Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules was not held. According to the petitioners, the lands were cultivable lands and in accordance with the directions issued by the Government, cultivable lands should not be acquired and hence, the land acquisition proceedings are illegal.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate produced before me the file and contended that the award was passed on 23. 9. 1986 in all cases. LEARNED government Advocate pointed out that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into effect on 24. 9. 1984 and the award passed on 23. 9. 1986 was well within the time. According to the learned Government Advocate the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Raja Harichandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition officer, A. I. R. 1961 SC 1500 has no application to the facts of the case and that case dealt with a case of computation of time limit for the purpose of limitation to file an appeal. LEARNED Government Advocate also refers to a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, a. I. R. 1996 Delhi 206. He submitted that the individual notices have been served on all the persons interested in the lands and all the formalities relating to the land acquisition have been complied with. He also produced the relevant file showing the acknowledgment of receipt of the notice by the petitioners and their father. He also submitted that the award was passed for all the land including survey No. 9/2 and it is incorrect to state that the lands covered in survey 9/2 were excluded. According to the Government Advocate, the file would clearly show that survey 92 has been reclassified as survey Nos. 9/2a, 9/2b, 9/2c, 9/2d, 9/2e and 9/2f and the entire extent covered under survey 9/2 has been acquired and the award has been passed. He, therefore, submitted that the land acquisition proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules and there is no impediment in the land acquisition proceedings.