K. CHINNATHAMBI GOUNDER AND ANR. Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HARIJAN WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether the fundamental principles actus curiae neminem gravabit (as act of a Court shall prejudice no man) and actus legis nemini est damnosus (an act in law shall prejudice no man) will have application in construing the time -limit prescribed in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, limiting - thereunder the period for declaration to three years from the date of the notification under Section 4 1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) FOR an appreciation of the question, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case. On 25th, June, 1969, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made by the second respondent herein notifying the intention of the Government to acquire a certain extent of land in Nanjanapuram Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District comprised in the Survey Numbers mentioned in the notification for the purpose of providing house -sites to Harijans. Among the items of land notified was an extent of 1.17 acres in Survey No, 48/1 belonging to the petitioners herein The enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act was held on 10th February, 1970 and then followed a declaration of the Government under Section 6(1) of the Act by Gazette Notification, dated 27th May, 1970 declaring that the lands were required for a public purpose.

(3.) THE petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1970 on or about 16th August, 1970, to challenge the validity of the declaration. Palaniswami, J., held that there, was no valid service of notice regarding the enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act and, therefore, the enquiry under Section 5 -A was vitiated and the declaration under Section 6 that followed was also vitiated. Consequently, by order, dated 3rd November, 1971, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and held that "the enquiry proceedings and the declaration under Section 6(1) have to be quashed without prejudice to the respondent continuing the proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised".