M. GANESAN AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of certiorari has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 599, Housing and Urban Development, dated 27.4.1987 relating to the acquisition of the petitioners' lands.

(2.) The facts averred in the affidavit are as follows: The petitioners who are husband and wife have purchased 8 3/8 cents and 5 1/8 cents respectively in S.No. 63/5D2 in Thopour Village of Madurai South Taluk on 28.10.1985 and the first respondent has issued the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by G.O.Ms.No. 1159, Housing and Urban Development, dated 4.11.1985 requiring these land and some other lands for the Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme and Land Development by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There is an Ashram in this property of the petitioners known as "Ramlingaswami Madam" in which, they are celebrating Thai Poosam Day, Ani Poosam Day and Karthigai Dheepam Day festivals and also celebrating the worship of Sri Ramalinga Swamigal on all 30 days in the month of Margazhi as they are devotees of Sri Ramalinga Swamigal and the vacant land has been let out to one R.S. Kannan who is having a shed for the purpose of manufacturing grease under the name and style of "Sri Pandiyan Lubricant. Though they are owners of the property, their names were not published for the acquisition of the lands, that the declaration has been made under Sec. 6 of the Act in G.O.No. 599, Housing and Urban Development, dated 27.4.1987, which is the impugned order without informing their objections to the requisitioning body viz., the Housing Board, that the scheme itself is ill -conceived and unwarranted as there was no necessity for forming a Satellite Town near Madurai when there was no demand for the house in Madurai. Some of the lands notified were dropped from the acquisition proceedings to certain other individuals, but their lands Have not been dropped from the acquisition and therefore this will amount to discrimination. There was no simultaneous publication or publication within a reasonable time. Therefore for all reasons the proceedings have to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Srinivasaraghavan contended that the petitioners have purchased the lands mentioned above even before the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act; however, the Acquisition Officer did not publish the name of the petitioners or notice also was not sent to them as to the requirement of the land and further for the enquiry under Sec. 5 -A of the Act also, notice was not sent to them and therefore this procedure followed by the respondent, proceeding with acquisition, without notice to the owners is illegal and the proceedings for acquisition has to be quashed. The Notification was made on 4.11.1985 whereas the petitioners have purchased the property only on 28.10.1985 from one Ramalakshmi Ammal. Therefore, when the sale was just six days before the notification, it appears that when the arrangements were made for issuing the notification and papers were sent for publication which must be at least a week prior to the notification, the petitioners could not have even purchased the property or even it they had purchased the property, the mutations could not have been carried out on the days/when the notification was effected. The Acquisition Officer has to proceed only on the basis of the Revenue Records and as Ramalakshmi Ammal was the vendor of the petitioners, her name finds a place in the notification. It is not the case of the petitioners that even on the day when the notification was made, the Revenue Records contained their names showing their ownership to this property and the Authorities had deliberately omitted their names. As the petitioners name could not have been entered in the Revenue Records, the Land Acquisition Officer could have been guided only from the entries in the revenue records and therefore nothing turns out from the description of the vendors name only, at the time of the notification Therefore, for the enquiry under Sec. 5 -A of the Act also, notice was sent only to Ramalakshmi Ammal the vendor, who according to the learned Government Advocate, did not turn up for the enquiry under Sec. 5 -A of the Act, therefore, there was no occasion for the Government till the enquiry under Sec. 5 -A of the Act was initiated on 16.9.1986 to know about the ownership of these petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer only on 14.11.1986 informing the sales in their favour. Therefore, the respondent cannot be blamed for not sending notice to the petitioners for the enquiry under Sec. 5 -A of the Act.