(1.) IN all the above writ petitions the challenge is only with regard to acquisition of lands for development of a new satellite town near Madras known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (now known as Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority). Since similar points have been taken in all the writ petitions, ,e may be disposed of by the following common order:-
(2.) THOUGH various contentions have been raised by the petitioners, for the convenience and for the present I shall refer the facts leading to the filing of the first writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 7388 of 1986. According to the petitioner, they are the owners of the land measuring a total extent of 17 acres 70 cents comprised in S. No. 238/17A measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S. No. 238/17B measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S. No. 238/17C measuring 5 acres 90 cents respectively in No. 83, Sengundram Village, Chingleput. They made improvements in the lands for the purposes of cultivation. They reclaimed the lands at a cost of more than Rs. 1,50,000. In G.O.Ms. No. 1198 Housing and Urban Development dated 7.7.1979, the second respondent issued a Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain lands including the aforesaid land of the petitioners for the development of a new satellite town known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. The first respondent has been authorised to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. It is stated that the particulars regarding ownership and extent furnished in the 4 (1) Notification are incorrect. They did not publish the substance of the Section 4 (1) Notification either in the locality or in the daily newspapers. However, the first respondent called upon the petitioners to state their objections if any for the said proposal. They submitted their objections and requested the respondents to drop their lands from acquisition. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, they did not hear anything in the matter and therefore they were under the impression that the respondents have deleted their lands from acquisition. But after 7 years, the petitioners were shocked to receive a notice under Section 9 (3) (10) of the Land Acquisition Act informing that an Award Enquiry will be held on 30.7.1986. It is stated that no notice for an enquiry under section 5-A of the said Act was ever served on the petitioners. The failure to comply with the said mandatory provisions vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, they have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.
(3.) MR.M.S. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 8216 of 1986 has raised the following contentions:- (i) There is a long delay in local publication of 4 (1) Notification; (ii) Section 5-A enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and violation of Rule 3 (b) of the Rules; (iii) Enormous delay in passing the award; and (iv) Madras Metropolitan Development Authority is neither a proper nor a necessary party in the present acquisition proceedings; hence the application filed by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for impleading them as one of the respondents is liable to be dismissed.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN