M J SARAVANAPERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorartified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents comprised in the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed in G.O.Ms.No. 892, Housing and Urban Development dated 10.9.1982 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.9.1982 and the consequential declaration under section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No. 966, Housing and Urban Development, dated 20.9.1985, and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gaz ette dated 2.3.1985 quash the entire acquisition proceedings thereon including passing of the Award relating to the petitioner -s lands in T.S.Nos. 205, 207/1, 207/2, 207/3, 207/4 and 208/2 of No. 81, Mugappair Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District, and direct the respondents no to acquire the abovesaid lands for any purpose, alleging as follows: The petitioners are brothers. They along with one Nandagopal Mudaliar constituted a Hindu joint family, which owned and possessed lands in Survey Nos. 205, 207/1, 207/2, 207/3. 207/4 and 208/2 to the total extent of 2.16 acres in Mugappair Village Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District. The elder brother Nandagopal Mudaliar expired on 11.7.1978 and the first petitioner is in management as the kartha of the joint family. They purchased a specific extent of 12 cents in S.No.207/2, one of the items subject matter of the proceedings by means of a registered sale deed on 3.4.1963. They got another extent of 12 cents in S.No.207/3 under a registered settlement deed from the legal heirs of one Natesh Mudaliar, their uncle, on 22.7.1970. Patta and other revenue records stand in their names. They are paying all land taxes and other public charges relating to those lands from the date of purchases and settlement respectively.

(2.) NO counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Government Pleader sought to support the decision on the materials available. He has produced the relevant files.

(3.) AS against these contentions the learned Government Pleader submitted as follows: So far as the Government is concerned, they are guided only by the records available. In the records the persons shown as owners of the properties were served with copies of section 4(1) Notification and enquiry notice under section 5 -A and their names were shown as the owners in the publications effected as required under the Act. The comments from the requisitioning body were made available to the interested persons at the time of section 5 -A enquiry and the objections raised by them were over -ruled. Therefore, it was not necessary to have a separate enquiry after service of notice under rule 3(b). So far as section 11 -A is concerned, the proceedings had been stayed by owners of other survey numbers and this point is covered by the decision reported in Shri Abhey Ram (dead) by L.Rs. & others v. Union of Indian and others , 1997 (2) U.J. (S.C.) 230.