D ANNALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the issue of notification under section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14 -8 -1986 issued by the second respondent and to quash the proposed acquisition commencing from issue of 4(1) Notification and ending with sections 9(3) and 10 notice of the Act in respect of R.S.No.3918/7 newly sub -divided as R.S.NO. 3918/16 on Chamiers Road, Madras -28, alleging as follows: The first writ petitioner, since deceased, was the owner of the land and building old No. 42, new No.77 on Chamiers Road, Madras - 28. She received a notice under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of an extent of 1237 sq.ft. near the built area of her bungalow. There was not enquiry under section 5 -A. Her husband late Doraiswamy Nadar came to know that section 4(1) Notification had been issued for the purpose of widening the road and for that purpose the extent of 1237 sq.ft. was sought to be acquired. He sent his objections in writing dated 24.3.1980 by registered post. He pointed out the hardship that would be caused to him and also the availability of vacant land on the northern side. He sent a reminder dated 31 -3 -1980 to the second respondent asking him to drop the proposed acquisition setting out his objections in detail. He did not receive any notice of any enquiry under section 5 -A of the Act. He died on 21.1.1985. He was under the impression that the objections had been accepted and proceedings dropped. However, after his death the first petitioner received the notice under section 9(3) and 10 dated 14.8.1986 already referred to. Aggrieved the present writ petition had been filed.

(2.) PENDING the writ petition the first writ petitioner died. Her legal representative D. Gunaseela Rajan filed petition W.M.P.No. 22228 of 1996 for substitution and the same was ordered on 15.9.1997.

(3.) NO doubt, it is stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the first petitioner's husband did not have notice of the 5 -A enquiry. This allegation does not appear to be correct. However, the first petitioner might not have been in the know of things. There is some justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the first petitioner nor her husband earlier had any notice of section 5 -A enquiry subsequent to the latter's letters dated 24.3.1980 and 31.3.1980 . The learned Counsel relies on the following judgments in support of his contention as regards the mandatory nature of the enquiry under section 5 -A: