A. Thangapalam vs The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and The Special Tahsildar (Neighbourhood Scheme) and Land Acquisition Officer

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.04.2002, made in W.P. No.

19439 of 1994, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground of of laches.

Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Housing and Urban Development Department, the appellant approached this Court by

way of W.P. No. 19439 of 1994. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner raised several contentions including the one that enquiry u/s 5A of the

Land Acquisition Act was not conducted as per Rules. It was also contended that the Newspapers in which publication was effected have no

circulation in that area. Apart from the above legal contentions, the petitioner also raised other contentions, pointing out certain Government

Orders, which prohibit acquisition of certain lands for the purpose ascribed by the Housing Department. The respondents filed a counter affidavit,

highlighting their stand. The learned Judge, after finding that Section 5A enquiry and Section 6 declaration were of the year 1992, and that the Writ

Petition was filed only in November, 1994, refused to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.

In the case on hand, the purpose of the acquisition is for formation of neighbourhood scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

Notification u/s 4(1) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.10.1991. The same was published in the local Dailies, viz.,

Nam Nadu"" & ""Madurai Mani"", on 20.11.1991 and the gist of notification was published in the locality on 21.11.1991. Form-3a Notice was

served on the petitioner on 05.01.1992 and the petitioner submitted his objections on 20.01.1992. Section 5-A enquiry was held on 23.1.1992

and the remarks of the requisitioning body was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.2.1992. Section 6 Declaration was published in the

Government Gazette on 18.11.1992; in the local Dailies, viz., Dhina Thoodu"" and ""Makkal Kural"", on 19.11.1992; and local publication was

effected on 20.11.1992. According to the learned Counsel, before passing of the Award, the appellant/petitioner approached this Court and filed

the Writ Petition questioning the entire acquisition proceedings.

The information furnished in the counter affidavit shows that the Award enquiry was conducted on 18.10.1994 and 19.10.1994 and final award

was passed on 18.11.1994. It is true that the Writ Petitioner obtained stay of all further proceedings on 16.12.1994. It is not the case of the

Department that after passing of the Award, the petitioner kept quite or slept over the matter. Normally, this Court will not entertain a Writ

Petition, challenging Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that it is only administrative in nature. It is not in dispute that

the petitioner submitted his objection within the prescribed time and also participated in the 5-A enquiry on 23.1.1992. It is further seen that the

remarks of the requisitioning body, viz, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was forwarded to the Land Acquisition Officer only on 25.2.1992, that is,

nearly after a months'' time from the date of the 5-A enquiry. Though this objection was raised in the affidavit, giving all the details, the same was

not considered by the learned Judge. Likewise, the other objection of the petitioner was that through all the three modes, notice was not properly

effected. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, publication in the Government Gazette, local Dailies and locality being mandatory,

failure to fulfil the above provision/condition would vitiate the acquisitions proceedings. It is specifically stated in the affidavit that the Dailies in

which publication was made, viz., ''Nam Nadu'', ''Madurai Mani'', ''Dhina Thoothu'' and ''Makkal Kural'', have no circulation in the locality where

the land situates. According to him, this objection, though specifically raised, was not considered and the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition

only on the ground of laches.

Mr. Sivaji , learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has brought to our notice the very same Government Order challenged

by other neighbouring land owners by way of separate writ petitions. In W.P. Nos. 20310 and 20311 of 1994, one of us (PSJ), after accepting

the above mentioned contentions, particularly violation of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, and also finding that the Dailies in which publication was made,

viz., ''Kumari Murasu'', ''Namadhu M.G.R.'' and ''Madurai Mani'', have no circulation in the locality in which the land in question situates, quashed

the acquisition proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the Government have accepted the said decision and no appeal has been filed till this date.

In view of the fact that the land in question is also the subject matter of the very same Government Order, we are of the view that the earlier order

dated 13.09.2001, made in W.P. Nos. 20310 and 20311 of 1994, is applicable to the petitioner in W.P. No. 19439 of 1994. The learned Judge

has not considered all these legal submissions and procedural violations.

In the light of what is stated above, the order dated 05.04.2002, made in W.P. No. 19439 of 1994, is set aside and the impugned acquisition

proceedings are quashed. It is made clear, if the respondents want to pursue the acquisition proceedings, they are free to initiate the same afresh in

accordance with law.

With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.