AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 23.04.2001 made in W.P.No.
4852 of 1994, in and by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein.
The first petitioner in W.P. No. 4852 of 1994 alone filed the present appeal.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, after taking us through the relevant materials, has raised the following
contentions:
(1) Inasmuch as Notification u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 19.12.1984 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 25.05.1986 are beyond
the prescribed period.
(2) Inasmuch as Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette as early as on 19.12.1984, there is no
justification for effecting local publication on 22.05.1985 and publication in the Tamil Daily ""Dina Thandhi"" on 21.05.1985 and in the English Daily
The Hindu"" on 28.05.1985. In view of the long gap, the action taken by the respondents is to be quashed.
Coming to the second contention that undue delay between the Tamil Nadu Gazette Notification and publication in the locality as well as
newspapers, it is true that Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dated 16.11.2004 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on
19.12.1984. However the same was published in the newspapers viz., in the Tamil Daily ""Dina Thandhi"" on 21.05.1985 and in the English daily
The Hindu"" on 28.05.1985 and the same was published in the locality on 22.05.1985. Though the gap appears to be on the higher side, the
learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice two decisions of the Supreme Court holding that such delay would not invalidate the
acquisition proceedings. In State of Haryana and Another Vs. Raghubir Dayal, in para 7 after referring about the notification u/s 4(1) and
declaration u/s 6 of the Act, their Lordships have held as follows:
Though there is a time gap of more than six months between the date of the notification u/s 4(1) in the State Gazette and the date of the publication
of the substance of the notification in the locality, the delay by itself does not render the notification u/s 4(1) published in the State Gazette, invalid.
In 2003 1 CTC 59 (Urban Improvement Trust v. Bheru Lal), in para 1, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in that
case. The Notification u/s 4(1) was first published in the Official Gazette in June 1992. Thereafter, substance of Notification was published in
November, 1992 and subsequently it was published in the local newspapers.
Taking note of the time gap, the Honourable Supreme Court, in para 20, has held as follows:
It is apparent that the Notification u/s 4 was first published in the official Gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance was published in November
1992 at the conspicuous places and subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering this sequence of publication, even if there
is some delay, it would not mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings u/s 4 require to be set aside. Similar view is expressed by this
Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal and Ors. 1995 1 SCC 7.
We have also relied on para 7 of the earlier decision reported in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Raghubir Dayal, .
In view of the decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, though the publication was effected in the locality and in the newspapers
after a period of four months, we are of the view that acquisition proceedings cannot held to be invalid. Accordingly, we reject the said contention
also.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice the decision of the First Bench of this Court dated 03.07.2002 in W.A.
No. 986 of 1986, wherein the Division Bench after finding that six months time for paper publication and local publication from the date of
Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, can, by no stretch, be termed as reasonable, confirmed the order of the learned single Judge,
who quashed the Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act on the point of delay. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court holding that on the
ground of delay in publication in daily newspaper and locality, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed, we are of the view that the said
decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. On the other hand, the decision of the Division Bench goes against the dictum laid down by the
Supreme Court. Accordingly, the argument based on the Division Bench judgment cannot be accepted.
In these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.