SHANMUGADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring Road to ensure and to regulate orderly development under the project known as Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions. For the convenience, I shall refer the fact narrated in W.P.No. 10013 of 1992. According to him, the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing R.S.No. 703 to an extent of 0.43.5 an hectare, 766/1 to an extent of 0.31.5 hectare, 766/2 to an extent of 0.27.5 hectare, 779/1 to an extent of 0.33.0 hectare, 799/2 to an extent of 0.33.5 hectares and 759 to an extent of 0.58.5 totalling 2.27.5 hectares etc., in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District. The said lands are all agricultural lands under the personal cultivation of the petitioners.

(2.) WHILE being so, the Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as if that the said lands are needed for a public purpose to wit for Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority in G.O.Ms.No. 958, Housing and Urban Development dated 10.6.1991 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.6.91 and appointed the 2nd respondent herein to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act . The second respondent issued a notice dated 21.8.1991 in Form 3-A for an enquiry under Section 5-a of the Act to be held on 18.9.1991. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and submitted his written explanation, through his counsel, objecting to the acquisition on several grounds. Their objections were forwarded to the requisitioning authority, and in turn the requisitioning authority filed a general remark dated 21.11.91. The second respondent by his proceedings dated 5.5.92 recommended to the Government for the acquisition of the entire lands covered under the notification except a small extent of 0.54.5 hectares being the excess land taken from that owner under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Thereafter, the Government have issued a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act that the lands are needed for the alleged public purpose, and issued a notification under G.O.Ms.No. 412 Housing and Urban Development (UD III (1)) Department dated 3.7.92. The entire acquisition proceedings are completely vitiated irregular, erroneous, illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Act; accordingly they approached this Court as stated above.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Government Advocate after taking me through the various averments in the counter affidavit, would contend that the public purpose mentioned in the Notifications is clear and precise; accordingly, the same is valid. He also contended that only on the basis of the acceptable reason or reasons certain lands have been omitted. He further contended that the respondents have fully complied with all the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules; accordingly prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions.