R LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.Nos.15320 of 1993 and 15321 of 1993: The first objection raised before us is that Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, has not been complied with. According to the petitioners, they sent their objections in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and remarks were called for from the requisitioning body. After the remarks were received by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners were called upon by a notice dated 1.7.1991 to appear for further enquiry on 30.7.1991. In the said notice, the Land Acquisition Officer, has stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has remarked that the objections raised by the petitioners, should be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.7.1991 and presented a statement of objection. Taking such objections into consideration, the Land Acquisition Officer had proceeded to send a report under Sec.5-A. The Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his report that the objections filed by the petitioners on 30.7.1991 were after taking into consideration the remarks made by the Requisitioning body.

(2.) WHAT is contended before us is though a notice was given on 1.7.1991, requiring the petitioners to appear on 30.7.1991 for further enquiry after the receipt of remarks from the Requisitioning Body, a copy of the remarks was not forwarded to the petitioners and even after 30.7.1991, they were not furnished with such a copy. We do not find any substance in this contention. If the petitioners were not furnished with such a copy, they ought to have raised the objection soon after 1.7.1991 when they received the notice on the date of the enquiry on 30.7.1991. In the objections filed by them on 30.7.1991, there is no mention by the petitioners that they had not been furnished with a copy of the remarks of the Requisitioning Body.

(3.) THE second objection is that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act has stated the public purpose to be "formation of Rural Housing Scheme, Kelakattalai" by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, while the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act has mentioned the public purpose to be "Implementation of Pallavaram Neighbourhood Scheme". It is vehemently argued that there is a material difference between the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Sec,6 of the Act as regards the public purpose and therefore, the proceedings are void. We are unable to accept this contention for the following reasons.