Jameela Beevi and 4 others vs The Stale of Tamil Nadu

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12598 of 1991 dated 14.7.1999. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners/appellants sought for quashing the notification of the first respondent u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') in G.O.Ms. No. 126, Home Department, dated 21.1.1974, and declaration u/s 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 1267, Home Department, dated 18.8.1991.

According to the petitioners, they belong to the same family, being the joint owners of the lands in Survey No. 1293/1 part and S. No. 1295/3 of Narasinganallur Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The impugned notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued to acquire the said lands for the purpose of constructing Quarters for police subordinate of Pettai Police Station. After conducting an enquiry and over-ruling the objections, the first respondent made a declaration u/s 6 of the Act on 22.1.1977. An award was passed on 19.4.1982. The petitioners, thereupon, filed W.P. No. 9750 of 1982 to quash the declaration. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed by an order dated 13.7.1990 by this Court with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of enquiry u/s 5A. An enquiry was conducted on 29.7.1991 and on behalf of the petitioners, their power agent Thiru. Abdul Hameed appeared for the enquiry and objected to the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners contend that there was no compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules hereinafter referred to as ''The Rules'' framed u/s 55(1) of the Act. The remarks of the requisitioning body was never forwarded to them and there was no proper enquiry after forwarding of the remarks of the acquiring authority. Therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.

It is not necessary to refer to the other allegations contained in the affidavit, having regard to the scope of the disposal of the present Writ Appeal.

With reference to the allegation of non-compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, in the counter filed to the Writ Petition, the respondents had contended that according lo Section 5A of the Act, if any objection petition was received within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, an opportunity has to be given to the objector as per Rule 3(b) of the Rules. In the present case, notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 13.2.1974. In the present case, the High Court had issued direction to the effect that the land acquisition officer can proceed afresh from the stage of enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner ought to have filed their objections before the land acquisition officer immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment of the High Court. But the petitioners did not send their objections within the time stipulated u/s 5A _ of the Act. Further, the petitioners did not send their objections within the time stipulated as per the public notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 22.6.1991 and therefore, the remarks of the requisitioning body on the objections were communicated to the petitioners through the proceedings u/s 5A of the Act.

Learned single Judge who heard the matter, agreed with the contentions raised by the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.

A perusal of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter as stated above, with reference to the compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Rules shows that the defence is two-fold. Firstly, the objections were not sent within thirty clays from the publication of Section 4(1) notification of the Act and that, secondly, at any rate, the objections were not sent within the time stipulated as per notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer for enquiry on 22.6.1991.

We are unable to agree with the contentions raised by the respondents. In as much as the declaration u/s 6 of the Act was quashed by this Court in the earlier proceedings in W.P. No. 9750 of 1982, it was specifically ordered that the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act was quashed, and that the respondents can proceed afresh from the stage of enquiry u/s 5A of the Act and to complete the enquiry in accordance with law. When once the earlier declaration u/s 6 of the Act had been quashed, it would be irrelevant to refer the time limit provided u/s 4(1) of the Act. The very purpose of giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, was to afford proper opportunity to the land owners to object to the acquisition of land. Their contention that the objections should have been made within thirty days from the date of Section 4(1) notification or from the date of the judgment cannot be sustained. While allowing W.P. No. 9750 of 1982, this Court has specifically recorded a finding that there was no proper proof forthcoming from the side of the respondents as regards proper publication of Section 4(1) notification in the locality. It was also further found that there was no proof that individual notices were served for the award enquiry. Therefore, in the face of the said finding, it is idle on the part of the respondents to contend that the land owners ought to have filed their objections within thirty days from the date of Section 4(1) notification, or from the date of judgment.

The contention that even otherwise, the land owners did not file their objections within the stipulated time in response to the public notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 22.6.1991, is also found to be factually incorrect on a perusal of the file.

Following are the relevant dates as could be gathered from the file:

A perusal of the above mentioned dates discloses that atleast of two aspects, there is non-compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, Firstly, the objections have been forwarded to the enquiring authority within the permitted limit of 15 days and the contentions of the respondents otherwise are not correct. Secondly, Section 5A enquiry was closed on 31.7.1991 and the remarks of the acquiring authority were received only on 2.8.1991, namely, after the closure of the enquiry. Section 5A enquiry report is also dated the same day as that of the remarks of the acquiring authority.

Therefore, for reasons best known to the respondents, the failure on their part is glaring on the face of the record, amounting to total disregard of Rule 3(b) of the Rules. The said Rules have been framed by the State Government and this Court has emphasised strict compliance in very many rulings. In the present case, the respondents had not complied with the proceedings even earlier, requiring the quashing of Section 6 declaration and even so, again the respondents had chosen to adopt a very careless attitude even in complying with the basic statutory requirements, which leaves us with no other alternative except to quash the declaration u/s 6 of the Act again. The authorities cannot treat the statutory requirements as empty formality. If really, the acquisition proceedings are taken seriously by the respondents, the glaring defects committed by them do not justify any serious regard for either the public interest involved or for the valuable rights of the land owners. With the result, the above Writ Appeal is allowed and the declaration u/s 6 of the Act is quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 13879 of 1999 is closed.