S THIAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a house site measuring 3,240 sq. ft. in R. S. No. 22/la in Velisemmandalam Village, Cuddalore Taluk , South Arctor District, having purchased the same under document no. 808/90, dated 24. 4. 1990 on the file Sub Registrar, Cuddalor e. He got approval of the lay out by the Director of Town Planning in na. Vu. E. No. 114/90. He obtained permission for construction of a house and constructed a house in August, 1991. THEreafter, a notification was issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G. O. Ms. No. 1251, dated 19. 9. 1991. When the petitioner received notice, he raised his objections and the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act was held on 20. 3. 1992. But for reasons best known to the respondents, another notice was issued to the petitioner in na. Ka. R. No. 70/98 dated 8. 6. 1992 calling upon him to file objections within 15 days. He filed his written objections on 16. 6. 1992. THEre was no enquiry under sec. 5-A of the Act thereafter. But a report would appear to have been forwarded to the concerned authorities recommending acquisition. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer of the requisitioning department, viz. Housing Board, made a recommendation in his proceedings 4190/b/92, dated 27. 10. 1992 to exclude the petitioner's land from the acquisition proceedings. Yet, the land was not excluded and a declaration was issued under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE petitioner is challenging the entire proceedings as invalid.

(2.) THE main ground urged by the petitioner is that there was a fully constructed house even on the date of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act and he was residing therein. According to him, the Government has note of the recommendations made by the Executive engineer and the Superintending Engineer of the requisitioning body and no reasons have been given for rejecting the objections made by the petitioner herein. Hence, it is contended that the acquisition is not bona fide. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that, after the enquiry on 28. 3. 1992 under sec. 5-A of the Act, a fresh notice dated 8. 6. 1993 was given to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his objections and he did give his objections. Inspit e of that, no enquiry was held thereafter and the land Administration Commissioner had sent a report to the Government on 29. 12. 1992 recommending the exclusion of the petitione r's land. Inspite of the said recommendation, declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act has been issued. Hence, it is contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated by legal mala fides, if not, factual mala fides.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the entire proceedings are vitiated and they are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the prayer of the petitioner as made in the petition is granted. .