J RAMALINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.147 of 1986, dated 10.2.1986 initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 and quash the same.

(2.) AS the facts are similar in nature in all the writ petitions, the following common order is passed.

(3.) THE next contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is with reference to the non-service of notice under Sec.9(3) of the Act. From the files in Rc.No.440 of 1986 of the respondents, it could be seen from page 35 that the respondents affixed the notice in a stick on the lands without resorting to any attempt to serve the party concerned. THE above action of the respondents is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there was no proper attempt resorted to by the respondents to serve the notice on the party concerned. Hence, he argued that the petitioners were crippled from participating in the award enquiry in the absence of notice. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision in Church of Soth India Trust Association v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu Church of Soth India Trust Association v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu Church of Soth India Trust Association v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu 95 L.W. 87 wherein Nainar Sundaram, J., as he then was held that publication of notice under Sec.9(3) by beat of Tom Tom and affixture at conspicuous place to be resorted to only after making diligent attempts to serve party concerned. It was also held that when two persons are shown as owners, temporary absence of one cannot be taken advantage of. In this case it could be seen that the authorities have resorted to affix the notice in a stick without making any diligent attempts to serve the party concerned. In this context, it could be said that the temporary absence cannot be taken advantage of to serve the notice in any other manner not strictly adhering to the provisions of the Act. It must be stated that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned could not be found even after diligent attempts were made. It is essential that the notice must be served as prescribed by the statute and it should be strictly followed. From the endorsement made on the reverse of the notice under Secs.9(3) and 10, it could be seen that the action of the respondents in affixing the notice under Sec.9(3) in a stick is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the statute thereby crippling the petitioners from participating in the award enquiry. Thus, in the present case, Rule 3-B of the Rules have not been followed by the respondents. Following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others 1994 Writ L.R. 326 it is held that in the present case the mandatory Rule 3(b) had been violated and Sec.5-A enquiry was vitiated for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 3(b) as well as the principles of natural justice.