C JAYARAMA REDDY DIED Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION CITY WORKS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is the owner of the land situate in t. S. No. 6/2, Block II, Saligramam Village, egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras District. THE first petitioner has constructed a pucca building in the said land. In the year 1981, the first petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under sec. 55 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act by the first respondent calling upon the first petitioner to file his objection, and to appear for the hearing on 21. 10. 1981. THE notice showed that the land was proposed to be acquired for constructing a Kalyana Mandapam at Vadapalani by Vadapalani Andavar Temple . THE first petitioner filed his objection. THEre was no further proceeding. In the year 1984, according to the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter from the first respondent stating that his objections were overruled and the matter was sent to the second respondent to issue the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE first petitioner received a notice under secs. 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act to appear in person or by authorised agent on 12. 9. 1986 before the first respondent to submit his statement. According to the first petitioner, he came to know that the land was acquired for the said public purpose at that time. THErefore, the first petitioner has approached this Court stating that the notification under sec. 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 26. 8. 1981 and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made before 26. 8. 1984 and hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. THE first petitioner also stated that there are vacant lands belonging to the said temple and those lands could be utilised by the respondents for the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. THE case of the petitioner is that the purpose mentioned for the acquisition is the construction of kalyana Mandapam, and the construction of Kalyana Mandapam cannot be regarded as public purpose at all. THE petitioners in the supplementary affidavit have stated that the main object for which the land was sought to be acquired is no more in existence as Vadapalani Andavar Temple has already constructed two kalyana Mandapams in the memo and style.' Valli Thirumana mandapam' and' Dheivayani Thirumana mandapam' adjacent to the temple and the said Kalyana mandapam were constructed in the land of an extent of 5 acres.

(2.) THE third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that Shri Vadapalani Andavar Temple is a public religious institution and the construction of Kalyana Mandapam to the temple is a public purpose. According to the third respondent, construction of a Kalyana Mandapam is for the benefit of general Public and the notification under Sec. 4 of the land Acquisition Act was duly published in the locality. THE first petitioner was also served with individual notice. According to the third respondent, the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act have been complied with and there are no merits in the writ petition.

(3.) THE second point that is urged by Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned senior Counsel is that the notification under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act was published on 26. 8. 1981, and enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act was held on 21. 10. 1981 and the first petitioner participated in the enquiry and submitted his objection. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the respondents 1 and 2 should have forwarded the objections raised by the petitioner to the requisitioning body, and after the remarks of the requisitioning body were obtained, the remarks should have been communicated to the petitioner and thereafter, an enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act should be conducted to find out the tenability or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings. In the instant case, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner' s objections were not forwarded to the requisitioning body and the remarks of the requisitioning body were not furnished to the petitioner and there was no further enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 5a of the Act read with Rule 3 (b) of the Rules framed under Sec. 55 (l)of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that since this Court has repeatedly held that Rule 3 (b) is mandatory in nature, if the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 (b) are not complied with, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act should be quashed.