NALLAPPA GOUNDER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 01. 4. 2002 wherein and by which the writ petition being W. P. No. 14715 of 1998 was dismissed without granting any relief.

(2.) THE appellant had inherited the land in Survey No. 726/3 to the extent of 0. 38. 0 Hectares situate in No. 90, Arunvangadu Thottam, K. K. Nagar, Kasipalayam, Erode. In that land, the petitioner had his own house and also had coconut, palm trees, mango trees, Guava trees, and other trees and also had a tiled house with a borewell, bath room and toilet. He was also having a cow shed and was carrying on milk business in the said premises. The house was built on a loan obtained from the Cooperative Society. However, the first respondent vide G. O. Ms. No. 25, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17. 01. 1997, issued a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, 'act'] stating that the said land is required for the public purpose of building houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

(3.) AS soon as the appellant came to know the same, he had written letters to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and to the respondents stating that he does not have any other land and already, the house was built out of the loan taken from the Cooperative Society and that he was also carrying on a small business and considering the nature of the extent involved, viz. , 0. 38. 0 Hectares, the land need not be acquired. It was also reiterated by subsequent letter sent to the appellant by the Executive Engineer of the Erode Housing Division and vide letter dated 03. 7. 1997, the appellant was asked to inform whether he was doing agriculture in the said land and to send necessary certificates for the same. Accordingly, the appellant obtained a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the land in question was owned by the appellant and he does not have any other land and he was given a certificate as a small farmer. Despite these objections, an Enquiry under Section 5 (A) under the Act was conducted by the second respondent and in the report dated 11. 02. 1998 sent by him, the objections of the appellant were duly recorded.