P. Mallika, P. Balasubramaniam, P. Hemalatha, P. Senthilvelan and P. Naveen vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioners have challenged Declaration u/s 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act relating to acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners.

One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is to the effect that substance of the notification was not published in the locality as contemplated

under Rule 2 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules of the Act, hereinafter referred to as ""the Rules"".

Rule 2 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules is to the following effect:

Rule 2: The Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification under Sub section (1) of Section 4 in Form ''A''. The notice shall

be published at convenient places in the locality and copies thereof fixed up in the offices, of the Collector and the Tahsildar.

In course of hearing the learned counsel for the State referred to the document at page 183 of the file produced by the respondents, wherein the

substance of notification has been indicated and has been signed. There is nothing in the said document or in the subsequent document to indicate

that the substance of the notification had been published at convenient places in the locality and copies thereof had been affixed in the offices of the

Collector and the Tahsildar as required under Rule 2 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules.

It has been held in several decisions of this Court that the requirement of publication of 4(1) notification are mandatory and all the three rules

indicated must be followed.

In the present case, there is no dispute that the publication had been made in the Gazette as well as in the newspapers. The only dispute is

relating to compliance of the requirement regarding publication of the substance in the locality as contemplated u/s 4(1) r/w Rule 2 of the Rules.

Merely because the copy signed by the Authority contains the substance of the notification, it would not be sufficient to come to a conclusion that

such substance had been published as required under Rule 2 of the Rules.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the declaration u/s 6 is quashed. It is needless to point out that it would be open to the

appropriate authorities to take fresh steps for acquisition of the land in accordance with law if there is any necessity. No costs.