C PONNUSAMY Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 63 petitioners have jointly filed the present writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from the respondents comprised in Sec. 6 declaration and issued under the Land Acquisition Act made in G. O. Ms. No. 876, Housing and Urban Development, dated 30. 8. 1985 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated

(2.) 9. 85 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners'lands in s. No. 276/1, 277/1, 277/2, 274/5,278, 259, 260/5, 275/3, 274, 274/3, 274/3b, 280/1, 275/2a, 274/2, 278/2, 275, 273, 273/3, 280, 257, 274/4, 258, 251, 274/5b, 277/3, 273/1, 275/1, 274/5a, 280/3, 275/b, 272, 258/1 and 259/2 goundampalayam village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District and consequentially direct the respondents to exclude the said lands from the acquisition proceedings. 2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased small extends of 5 cents or 6 cents or 11 cents of land for the purpose of putting up construction for their residence, that many of them have already put up construction and are residing there, with their families, that ignoring their rights, notification has been issued at the instance of the Tamil Nadu housing Board to acquire the lands for the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme, coimbatore, that they have sent their objections, that several of them have not been served with the notice despite their objections, that at the stage of sec. 5-A enquiry, the remarks of the requisitioning body have not been communicated to them and Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been violated in that after communicating the remarks of the Housing Board, no personal hearing or enquiry has been conducted by the second respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, that there is no reason or rhyme to acquire the lands which the petitioners have purchased in small plots, put up construction and they reside in the plots, for the purpose of the Housing Board to build houses and to allot the same to third parties, that the petitioners have no other plot or land, that most of the petitioners are residing there for more than 15 years by putting up construction securing electricity connection, that the proceedings under Sec. 5-A is vitiated by non-compliance with the requirement of rule 3 (b), that Sec. 6 Declaration is illegal, that Sec. 4 (1) notification is vague, that the lands have been described incorrectly as dry lands when there exist buildings where the petitioners reside, that there exist coconut trees and as such the lands should not be acquired as per the Government Order, that there has been no scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under Sections. 41 and 49 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act before acquiring lands, that the lands should have been excluded as directed by the Government as has been held by the division Bench of this Court in A. Subbiah and another v. Governmentt of Tamil nadu, A. I. R. 1988 Mad. 355 and that there is no justification for the petitioners being denied of their only plot of land where they reside and that the acquisition should have been dropped.

(3.) THE entire file has been placed before this Court at the time of hearing. Various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which are being dealt hereunder.