M DURAISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2246 of 2001 , is the applicant in the above Review Application.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the applicant/writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 9521 of 1994 before this Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 11. 07. 2001 along with other connected Writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after finding that the petitioner and other have not approached the Court within the time prescribed, refused to accept their contention and dismissed all the Writ Petitions with liberty to make representation to the concerned authority under Section 48-B of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act" ). AGGRIEVED by the said or der , the applicant preferred Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2246 of 2001. The Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 11. 08. 2006.

(3.) BASED on the above specific averments, notice was ordered in the Review Application. Pursuant to the direction, learned Special government Pleader produced the records. On verification, it was found that no notice was sent to the erstwhile owner of the land, as claimed in the counter affidavit. As said earlier, based on the contentions made in the counter affidavit, the Division Bench rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed his Appeal. In view of the factual position that no notice was issued to the erstwhile owner, whose name finds a place in the revenue records, we are of the view that in so far as petitioner is concerned, the acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained. Even though the petitioner did not take effective steps for the change of patta , in view of the fact that the erstwhile owner was not issued notice or intimated about the acquisition proceeding, neither the petitioner, nor is vendor had an occasion to contest the acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the above mentioned relevant aspect was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge as well as before the division Bench, we accept that there is an error apparent on the order of the division Bench and the same is liable to be reviewed.