G RANGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the joint owners of the land admeasuring an extent of 1008 sq. ft. in T. S. Nos. 23/1, 23/2 and 23/3 of Salem Municipality and the said land was acquired for expansion of tyre plant of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. According to the appellants the property was purchased by their father D. P. Gopala Iyengar as early as in 1926 in an auction conducted by Salem Municipality. It is seen that earlier the Government published a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Government Gazette dated 4. 7. 1979 as per G. O. Ms. No. 597 Transport Department dated 31. 5. 1979, stating that the land situated in T. S. Nos. 23/1, 23/2 and 23/3 is needed for the expansion of the bus depot of the second respondent Corporation and after taking note of the objections raised by the appellants, those acquisition proceedings were dropped. Subsequently, again, the Government has published Section 4 (1) Notification in G. O. Ms. No. 537, Transport dated 4. 5. 1984 for acquiring the same lands for the expansion of the second respondent Corporation and questioning the validity of the Section 4 (1) Notification and the Section 6 Declaration dated 13. 10. 1986, the appellants have filed W. P. No. 12710 of 1986, which was dismissed on 17. 3. 1997 with an observation to consider the representation of the appellants to be made by them. Thereupon, the appellants have made a representation dated 16. 5. 1997 seeking to exclude the land from the acquisition proceedings, which was rejected by the respondents by the G. O. Ms. No. 66 Transport (B2) Department dated 13. 4. 1998. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed W. P. No. 6788 of 1988 and since the same has been dismissed by the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR. N. G. R. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that originally the land was sought to be acquired for construction of a dust collection chamber and in view of the admitted fact on the part of the respondents themselves that now they are using only oil for burning the tyres, there is no use of the dust chambers and hence the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is no more in existence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in JAINULABUDEEN AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF T. N. AND OTHERS [ (1994) 4 SCC 568] wherein the Honourable Apex Court, having factually found that the impugned proposal for acquisition was no longer subsisting and has quashed the acquisition notification.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would further argue that presence of such a dust chamber in the residential locality will cause danger to the environment further affecting the health of the persons residing in the locality. He would further submit that development must be a sustainable development and would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs. C. KENCHAPPA AND OTHERS [ (2006) 6 SCC 371], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development such that ecology and environment is not gravely impaired. '