BUTTUKAN ALIAS KANDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G. O. (3d) No. 32, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 27. 3. 96 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Supplement) part-II Sec. 2 dated 24. 4. 1996 and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act in G. O. (3d) No. 21 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 5. 5. 97 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part. II Sec. 2 dated 5. 5. 97 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the acquisition of lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey No. 148/1 of an extent of 0. 28. 0 hectares in B. Anjehalli village, Pennagaram Taluk and Dharmapuri District.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of agricultural lands measuring an extent of 0. 28. 0 hectares in S. No. 148-1 situated in B. Anjehalli village, Dharmapuri District. 1st respondent issued a notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act', dated 27. 3. 1996 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24. 4. 96 in which the lands of the petitioner were also required for the public purpose of providing house-sites to the people belonging to Vanniars of Bilianur Agraharam village. According to the writ petitioner, he was not served with any enquiry notice under Sec. 5a of the Act. His valuable right to put forth his objections to the proposed acquisition were taken away and he was denied the opportunity of participating in the 5a enquiry. Hence he filed the above writ petition for the above said relief.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner appeared for the enquiry on 10. 7. 96 and offered his statement that he has no objection for the acquisition of the land.