AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order of the second
respondent in RCA/1777/96 dated 31.12.1996, quash the same and forbear the respondents from acquiring her land without duly complying with
the statutory provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for the Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (in short the ""Act"").
The petitioner is the owner of the land of an extent of 0.50.0 hectares comprised in Survey No. 67/1B, 67/2B and 67/3B, Devarayanpalayam
Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District, which is proposed to be acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Act.
Before issuing notice u/s 4(1) of the Act, the second respondent issued a notice u/s 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for the Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 (in short the ""Rules""), in Form I. The said notice dated 29.11.1996 issued in
Form I under Rule 3(1) read with Section 4(2) of the Act, calling for the objections from the petitioner/owner of the land in writing on or before
20.12.1996, was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due.
From the records, I find that when the said registered notice was proposed to be served on the petitioner on 5.12.1996, she was not available
and also on 6.12.1996. But, on 7.12.1996, there is an endorsement that the petitioner refused to receive it. Therefore, it appears that the
respondents served a fresh notice in Form I under Rule 3(1) of the Rules read with Section 4(2) of the Act, in person on 6.1.1997 giving time to
file her objection on or before 10.1.1997.
The above facts are not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in view of the materials available on record.
Assuming the respondents would contend that since the petitioner refused to receive Form I notice dated 29.11.1996 on 7.12.1996, she is not
entitled to complain that she has been denied fair and reasonable opportunity to make her objections to the impugned acquisition, I am unable to
appreciate the same, in view of the fact that only on 7.12.1996, the petitioner refused to receive the notice dated 29.11.1996, wherein the
petitioner was required to submit her objection on or before 20.12.1996. If 7.12.1996 is construed as the date of effective service of notice dated
29.11.1996 in Form I, it is apparent on the face of the record that the said notice does not satisfy 15 days time required to submit her objection as
contemplated in Form I under Rule 3(1) of the Rules read with Section 4(2) of the Act. The service of Form-I notice under Rule 3(1) of the Rules
read with Section 4(2) of the Act on the petitioner on 6.1.1997 giving time to file her objections on or before 10.1.1997 also does not satisfy the
condition of giving 15 days time for submitting her objections. Hence, the impugned proceedings is quashed, but, without prejudice to the right of
the respondents to issue fresh notice and proceed in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.