Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

T. Meenakumari, J.—The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in

G.O.Ms.No. 820, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1982 and G.O.Ms.No. 843, Housing and Urban Development

Department, dated 23.8.1985 and quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioner''s

land in S.F.Nos.345/2,346/2 and 347/2 of the extent of 3 acres and 21.5 cents in Thelungupalayam Village, Coimbatore District.

The petitioner is Ms. Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited. The case of the petitioner is that it owns an extent of 3 acres and 21.5

cents in S.F.Nos.345/2, 346/2 and 347/2. In S.F.No. 345/2 it owns an.

extent of 60.5 cents, in S.F.No. 346/2 it owns an extent of 1.15 acres and in S.F.No. 347/2, it owns an extent of 1.46 acres. The petitioner has

purchased the land by a sale deed dated 17.1.1964. It is averred in the writ petition that by G.O.Ms.No. 820, Housing and Urban Development

Department, dated 17.8.1982, the Government proposed to acquire a total extent of 43.73 acres for the purpose of the formation of A.A. Nagar

Scheme. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 1.8.1982. Though the notification was

published on 1.8.1982, the notice in Form No. 3-A was received by the petitioner on 9.4.1984. In the notice the name of the owner of the land

was mentioned as M. Jambunathan even though M/s. Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited was the actual owner. On 16.4.1984 the

petitioner has informed the second respondent stating that similar reference was received on 8.3.1984 and he has already filed his objections on

4.3.1984. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the sale deed on 28.3.1984. In the objections, he has stated that Survey Number and extent given

in the notice was not correct and that the name of the owner was also not correct. He has further stated that as an individual he has owned only 5

cents and M/s. Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited owned a total extent of 3.21.5 acres in S.F.Nos. 345/2, 346/2 and 347/2. An

enquire u/s 5-A of the Act was fixed on 30.4.1984 On 24.3.1984, the petitioner submitted its objections. The petitioner has filed its objections

under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules. The second respondent has forwarded the objections of the petitioner to the third

respondent on 3,5.1984 after the enquiry was held on 30.4.1984. The third respondent has submitted its remarks to the objections by its letter

dated 26.6.1984. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the remarks. A declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued by G.O.Ms.No.

843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985. The same was published in the Government Gazette on 26.8.1985, in an

English daily on 27.8.1985, in a Tamil daily on 28.8.1985 and in the locality on 30.8.1985. It is also averred in the writ petition that notice u/s 9(3)

of the Act was issued on 14.12.1985. Another notice was issued on 5.2.1987 to appear for the award enquiry on 9.3.1987. Another notice dated

4.12.1988 was issued to appear for an enquiry on 12.1.1989. Aggrieved by the non-mentioning of the name of the owner and also for non-

compliance of the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules and the issuance of the notice of the award on different dates and on other grounds, the

present writ petition has been filed seeking for quashing of the land acquisition proceedings.

In this case, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter, but a pro forma has been filed signed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

Special Tahsildar, Housing Scheme I, Coimbatore dated 9.9.1998. Even though the Government Advocate has filed the records, the records are

not clear and the case has to be decided on the pro forma filed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 9.9.1998. The pro forma is treated as the part

of the court records.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued by G.O.Ms.No. 820, Housing and Urban

Development Department, dated 17.8.1982. The notice in Form 3-A was issued by the second respondent on 7.4.1984. In the said notice, the

name of the owner was mentioned as Shri M. Jambunathan even though the actual owner is M/s. Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited.

The petitioner seems to have written a letter on 16.4.1984 to the second respondent stating that a similar reference dated 8.3.1984 had been

received and he has already filed his objections on 4.3.1984. He has also filed a copy of the sale deed on 28.3.1984. The objections filed by the

petitioner was forwarded to the third respondent on 3.5.1984 i.e., after enquiry u/s 5-A was held on 30.4.1984. It has been argued that the third

respondent has forwarded his remarks on 26.6.1984. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of meeting the remarks of the third respondent.

Basing on the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the enquiry held u/s 5-A of the Act was in flagrant violation of Rule 3(b) of

the Land Acquisition Rules. He has argued that the authorities have not taken into consideration the non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3(b)

of the Rules and the authorities have not chosen to conduct the fresh enquiry u/s 5-A and has chosen to issue declaration u/s 6 of the Act in

G.O.Ms.No. 843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985. He has argued that the respondents have issued notice u/s

9(3) on different dates namely 14.12.1985, 5.2.1987, 9.3.1987, 14.12.1988 and the last one being 9.12.1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

has argued that as per the pro forma submitted by the Government Advocate signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the date of award enquiry

was shown as 12.1.1989 whereas the award was passed on 27.8.1987 in Award No. 7 of 1987. Notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were

shown to be issued on 14.12.1988. Basing on the above, he has argued that even assuming that the award was passed on 27.8.1987 in Award

No. 7 of 1987, as per the statement of the respondents, notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were issued on 14.12.1988. In such circumstances,

learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that passing of the award itself is bad as the respondents have failed to issue notices under Sections

9(3) and 10 as on the date of passing of the award. From the above it is very clear that the enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989 and notices under

Sections 9(3) and 10 were issued on 14.12.1988 and the award was passed on 27.8.1987. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the

petitioner has argued that the authorities have messed up the entire proceedings and the issuance of the enquiry notice in the year 1989 was an

after-thought as the award was passed in the year 1987. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire land

acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed for the non-compliance of Rule 3 which is mandatory and notice u/s 9(3) was served after the

award was passed.

In this case, the fact remains that even though M/s. Jamburagavan and Company Private Limited is the owner by way of purchase, Rule 3(b)

notices were issued to M. Jambunathan for which the petitioner has already intimated to the second respondent stating the name of the actual

owner. Even though the petitioner herein has filed his objections to Rule 3(6) notice, the remarks were forwarded to the third respondent only on

30.5.1984 i.e., after conducting enquiry u/s 5-A on 30.4.1984. The same has not been disputed by the respondents. The third respondent has

forwarded his remarks on 26.6.1984 after enquiry u/s 5-A was over. The above facts show that the authorities have, not complied with the

provisions of Rule 3(b). In this context it is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two Ors.

1994 W.L.R. 326, held that the mandatory Rule 3(b) had been violated and Section 5-A enquiry was vitiated for failure to comply with the

requirements of Rule 3(b) as well as the principles of natural justice. It was held in Kannammal (deceased) V.N. Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu

and Ors. 1990 W L.R. 439, that the remarks of the requisitioning authority should be available to the owner/claimant whose land is acquired at the

time of the enquiry u/s 5-A. As the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in that case had been communicated to the petitioners therein nearly

two years after the enquiry u/s 5-A, it was held that it vitiated the entire enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act. In Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu

and Anr. 1987 W. L.R. 182, Nainar Sundaram, J. as he then was, held that if remarks of the requisitioning body had not been obtained when the

enquiry u/s 5-A was held, much less furnished to the owner of the land, it would vitiate the proceedings. To the same effect, the following decisions

are: (1) C. Ponnusamy and Others Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2) Balkis Ammal by power of Attorney Agent K.P.M. Abdul Gafor

Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , (3) Tube Suppliers Ltd., v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (1997) 3 C.T.C. 213 and also the

unreported decision in W.P.Nos.3969 and 3976 of 1991, dated 16.4.1998. In view of the above decisions, it could be held that as the remarks of

the requisitioning body was not made available to the owner/claimant whose lands were acquired at the time of enquiry u/s 5-A, it has to be held

that the requirements of Rule 3(b) have not been complied with. Hence, the enquiry u/s 5-A is vitiated. The next contention urged by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner is with reference to passing of the award. In this case, as per the pro forma filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the

award in No. 7 of 1987 seems to have been passed on 20.7.1987. The award notice seems to have been issued on 14.12.1988. The date for the

enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989. It is not made clear by the respondents counsel how the award was passed in the year 1987 without the notice

being issued under Secs.9 and 10 of the Act. Even assuming that notices were issued, they were issued after the passing of the award and the

enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989. In such a case, in view of the non-compliance of the provisions relating to passing of the award and as there was

no rebuttal contention from the respondents, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the award has been passed without issuing the notice u/s 9(3)

of the Act. In view of the above, it has to be held that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Act.

The enquiry u/s 5-A is held to be bad. Notification issued u/s 6 is also liable to be quashed. The award itself is liable to be quashed for the non-

compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. For the reasons stated above, the land acquisition proceedings including the

award are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.