M.J. IRANI Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, CORPORATION SCHEME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the owner of the land and building in S. No. 1304, Mylapore, Madras, has alleged that the provisions of the Mylapore -Teynampet Area Town Planning Scheme have injuriously affected his property in that the road to be formed as a link road would destroy the safety and privacy of his bungalow. He has, therefore prayed that this Court should issue a writ of certiorari and quash the land acquisition proceedings started by notice dated 29th March, 1963 in so far as it affects his property.

(2.) IN order to improve the amenities in Mylapore -Teynampet area, the State Government introduced the Mylapore -Teynampet Area Town Planning Scheme and accordingly issued a notification under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 13th May, 1941. The submission of the scheme took sometime, and finally the Scheme was sanctioned by Government under Section 14(3) and (5) of the Act and published in the Gazette on 18th May, 1960. In pursuance of the Scheme, a Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Corporation Scheme, Madras, was appointed to perform the functions under the Land Acquisition Act. The notices under Section 9(1) and Section 10 and Section 9(3) were duly published and served upon the petitioner on 12th March, 1963. Immediately the petitioner filed an objection petition to the Government, for the exclusion of his land from acquisition. His main objections were that the bungalow was constructed at a considerable cost and that the intended or proposed road to be formed through his land would destroy the safety and privacy of his bungalow. As early as 1949, when the State Government conceived the idea of forming a road through his land under the Scheme, he lodged his protest as such a road would serve no useful purpose but would only be detrimental to the petitioner and also his neighbour. It is alleged in his affidavit that nothing happened afterwards, but all of a sudden he received the impugned notice dated 9th March, 1963 and the authorities proceeded with the acquisition in spite of his objections. Hence he has filed the writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the State it is stated that, after considering the matter fully, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner and also passed an award, and thereby decided to implement the Scheme as per the Plan According to the counter -affidavit, the formation of EE Road was one of the roads notified in the Scheme published and the petitioner cannot question the acquisition itself as the opinion of the Government regarding the public purpose was final in acquisition matters. It is also alleged that the formation of EE Road is very essential to connect the interior places with the main road on the north.