SIVAPRAKASA MUDALIAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION, STATE HOUSING BOARD SCHEME AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of land bearing S. No. 154, an extent of 2.44 acres which was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Fort St. George Gazette for acquisition, and the purpose for the acquisition, which was stated in that notification, was the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in Kanniappanagar and other slums in the Madras City. At that time, the enquiry under Section 5A was proposed to be dispensed with and the urgency clause in Section 17(4) was applied. In W.P. Nos. 1094 of 1959 and 151 of 1960, this Court struck down that part of the notification which invoked Section 17(4) for dispensing with the application of Section 5A, with the result that the acquisition had to proceed from the stage of the notification under Section 4(1). It may be necessary to point out that at the time when the aforesaid writ petitions were filed, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act had also been made on 26th November, 1958. The petitioner along with other persons interested in other lands in the locality filed W.P. No. 80 of 1961 and some other writ petitions in this Court. The contention which they urged at that time was that it was improper to proceed further with the acquisition and that in the above circumstances the notification under Section 4(1) should be quashed. One of the main grounds, which was urged before Veeraswami, J., before whom W.P. No. 80 of 1961 and other writ petitions came up for hearing was that after the notification was made, the avowed public purpose for which according to the notification, the lands were intended to be acquired had been ceased to exist or had been converted into some other purpose. It was mentioned prominently that the slum dwellers for whose benefit the original notification under Section 4(1) was made, refused to leave their places and the authorities therefore proposed to allot the land for dwelling houses to people in the middle and low income groups. Veeraswami, J. refused to grant the prayer for quashing the notification under Section 4(1). The learned Judge observed that in view of the counter -affidavit filed by the Government in those writ petitions agreeing to deal with the matter from the stage of the notification under Section 4(1) the petitioners would have an opportunity under Section 5A to make to the concerned authorities all representations including the objection mentioned above to the proposed acquisition. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

(2.) THAT order was taken in appeal by the petitioner herein and the appeal was disposed of by a Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice Sri Ramachandra Iyer and Venkataraman, J. on a decision which was reported in Sivaprakasa Mudaliar v. State of Madras, (1963) 2 M.L.J. 376. The main ground urged before the Bench was that the authorities would not be justified in making a diversion of the original purpose stated in the earlier Section 4(1) notification. The Bench was of the opinion that even if the Housing Board (the Public body at whose instance the land was proposed to be acquired) proceeded to grant the house -sites to persons belonging to the low and middle income groups in the city, it would not amount to a diversion of the original purpose. In fact, the Bench went so far as to say that the original purpose of the acquisition, namely, providing house -sites for slum dwellers, if given a literal construction, would include the object of providing accommodation for persons belonging to low and middle income groups as well.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY the authorities gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections, a Section 5A enquiry was held, and a declaration under Section 6 also was issued on 26th May, 1965. The petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to quash the abovesaid declaration under Section 6.