AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—In the above batch of writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash G.O. Ms. No.429 Housing and Urban
Development Department dated 13.11.1998 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and published in the Government Gazette No.48A Part II Section
2 (Supplement) dated 16.12.1998 and G.O. Ms. No.54 Housing and Urban Development Dept., dated 2.2.2000 in issuing a Declaration u/s 6
published in the Government Gazette dated 2.2.2000 in Part II Section 2 at pages 1 and 2 and the consequent notice issued u/s 9(3) and 10 of
The Land Acquisition Act, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings in respect of
the petitioners property as detailed in the respective writ petitions.
In all the above six writ petitions the Notification and Declaration challenged are one and the same and, therefore, these writ petitions were
consolidated and taken up together. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. With the consent of either side, the writ petitions
were taken up for final disposal. Though the respondents have not filed a counter, they have produced the files before the Court at the hearing.
Excepting the difference in the extent of the land or survey number there is no other difference between one writ petition and another writ petition.
Heard Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Ms. D. Malarvizhi, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions.
The petitioner in each of the writ petition claim that they are the owners of various extent of lands comprised in survey No.63/1 Part,
Koyambedu Village, Nungambakam Taluk. According to the petitioner, the very land was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings on the
earlier occasion in G.O. Ms. No.974 Housing Department dated 11.5.1978 and Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O. Ms. Nos.1383 and 1384
Housing Department dated 28.9.1978. The said land was sought to be acquired among other adjacent vast extent of lands. Palani Naicker and the
petitioner challenged the said acquisition by filing W.P. Nos. 4839, 4840, 4841 of 1982, etc., batch. The said writ petitions were dismissed on
18.10.1992.
5.Being aggrieved, the said Palani Naicker and the petitioner preferred W.A. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984. The Division Bench, while holding that
Section 5A enquiry conducted is defective, allowed the writ appeals by judgment dated 14.9.90 and quashed the Section 6 Declaration. The
Division Bench however observed that the enquiry u/s 5-A of The Land Acquisition Act not having been conducted in accordance with law,
quashed the Declaration u/s 6 and made it clear that it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further from the stage of enquiry u/s 5-A in
accordance with law. However, no steps have been taken in that respect.
After a lapse of seven years the first respondent State issued a Notification u/s 4(1) in G.O. Ms. No.429 Housing and Urban Development
Dept., dated 13.11.1998 notifying that the lands measuring 4 acres 89 cents in various survey fields of No.106 Koyambedu Village are needed for
public purpose, to wit for the Koyambedu Wholesale complex developed to decongest the Madras George Town area and to provide better
facilities for the public by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
7.According to the petitioner, Section 4(1) Notification was published in the gazette on 16.12.1998, published in Tamil Dailies ""Kathiravan"" and
Madurai Mani"" on 6.1.99. The petitioner points out that the said two dailies have no circulation in the area. The petitioner further adds that the
substance of Section 4(1) Notification is claimed to have been made on 2.3.99, while according to the petitioner no such publication of the
substance in the locality was effected, either by beating of tom tom or by publication in the locality or by affixture in terms of Section 4(1) of the
Act.
The petitioner filed their objections through their Advocate on 3.7.99. The petitioners state that the wholesale market was constructed and
declared open and it is being used for the past four years. After the formation of the market, no further land is required for the same purpose. The
2nd respondent conducted an enquiry u/s 5A on 9.7.99 and 14.7.99, but Rule 3 (b) has not been complied with as amended by Rule 4 (1) of The
Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules. It is contended that copy of remarks of the requisitioning authority was neither made available to the objectors
nor personally served on the objectors immediately.
According to Section 5-A enquiry proceedings dated 19.11.99, the remarks of the requisitioning authority is dated 17.9.99, which is after the
date of Section 5-A enquiry conducted on 9.7.99 and 14.7.99. Therefore, there was no application of mind and it is a summary rejection of the
objections.
It is contended that the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 24.9.99 to the land owners about the holding of Section 5-A enquiry and calling
for submission of objections by the land owners. According to the petitioners, Rule 4 has not been complied with, while conducting the enquiry u/s
5-A and without application of mind objections have been overruled in toto. It is also pointed out that an errata has been issued to the proceedings
issued u/s 5-A for the words and numbers ""locality : 2.3.99"" has to be read as ""locality : 8.2.99"". The petitioners assert that there was no
publication of Section 4(1) Notification in the locality. In the Section 5-A enquiry proceedings, the 2nd respondent himself has referred to the
publication of substance u/s 4(1) as having been effected on 2.3.99 and, therefore, there is violation of Section 4(1) and, consequently, there is a
gap of more than one year between last of the publication of Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration.
Mr. Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the substance of the Notification was published on 2.3.99 in
the locality if at all and, therefore, there is violation of Section 4(1), which provides that publication shall be completed within sixty days and such
sixty days shall be reckoned from the date of publication of Notification in the official gazette or the date of publication of such Notification in two
daily newspapers or the date of giving public notice, whichever is earlier.
It is also contended that Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has not been complied with, in that no notice has been served on
the land owner after receipt of remarks and there was no valid enquiry at all. It is also contended that there was no publication of the substance of
Section 4(1) Notification in the locality. Assuming so, the publication was effected only on 2.3.99 and not on 8.2.99 as sought to be made out by
the respondents and such publication on 2.3.99 being beyond 60 days, the proceedings cannot be proceeded further. In this respect, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement of K. Govindarajan, J., in Pethu Chettiar Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi
Dravida Welfare, Chidambaram, Cuddalore, and two others, . It is also pointed out that the errata issued will not date back to the date of the
Notification Section 4(1) and, therefore, it will not cure the defect, if any, in this respect.
Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham after reservation of the order made a special mention on the following date that publication of Section 4(1)
Notification in the two Tamil Dailies which has no circulation in the locality vitiates the acquisition proceedings.
Ms. Malarvizhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that Section 4(1) Notification was published on
8.2.99 and not on 2.3.99 as seen from the files. The learned Government Advocate also pointed out that the errata has been issued to the Section
5-A proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer substituting the date of publication of the substance as 8.2.99 instead of 2.3.99, which date is
factually wrong. The learned Government Advocate further contended that there was factually publication of substance of Section 4(1) Notification
in the locality on 8.2.99 and there are material documents, which are available in the files to show the publication in the locality and to establish that
publication in the locality was factually effected on 8.2.99. It is contended that the gap between Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6
Declaration is not more than one year as sought to be contended.
It is also contended that Rule 4 has been complied with, in that the objections were forwarded to the requisitioning body, the remarks of the
requisitioning body was sent to the land owners and, thereafter only an enquiry u/s 5A was conducted. Therefore, according to the learned
Government Advocate, Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules have been complied with strictly and the contentions to the contra are
untenable. The learned Government Advocate also contended that the errata issued on 7.12.99 is in respect of a bona fide mistake committed in
drafting the Section 5-A enquiry proceedings and the material records would prove that substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published on
8.2.99 and not on 2.3.99. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have not filed their objections to the acquisition within the period prescribed u/s
5-A, namely, objection within 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification and, therefore, the petitioners cannot object to the
acquisition nor they could contend that Rule 4 has not been complied with. According to the learned Government Advocate, on 5.12.2001 itself
award has been passed after following the formalities and it was pronounced on 14.12.2001. It is pointed out that the publication of Section 4(1)
notification in the two Tamil dailies is valid and according to statutory provision as the two dailies have circulation in the locality and the two dailies
are not insignificant dailies. It is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
The following points arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions :-
i) What is the actual date on which substance of Section 4(1) Notification published in the locality ? Is it on 8.2.99 or on 2.3.99 ?
ii) Whether within 60 days from the date of publication of Notification in the official gazette or from the date of publication in the two daily
newspapers or the date of giving public notice, whichever is earlier, the notice as required u/s 4(1) of the Act has been published in terms of
amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act ?
iii) Whether there is a gap of more than one year between the last of the publication of Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration ?
iv) Whether Section 5A enquiry was conducted validly and whether Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been followed ?
v) Whether Section 4(1) Notification has been published validly in two Tamil dailies (i) Madurai Mani and (ii) Kadiravan having circulation in the
locality ?
All the points (i) to (v) could be considered together as they are inter-related or interconnected.
There is no dispute that the acquisition is for a public purpose. There is no dispute that Section 4(1) Notification was issued in G.O. Ms.
No.429 Housing and Urban Development Dept., dated 13.11.98. Section 4(1) Notification was gazetted on 16.12.1998, published in the two
Tamil dailies on 6.1.99. There is no quarrel in this respect to these three dates.
Mr. Bhavanantham, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that substance of Section 4(1) Notification was not at all published in the
locality. Alternatively it is contended that as seen from Section 5A enquiry proceedings communicated, if at all, it was published on 2.3.99, which is
beyond sixty days from the date of Section 4(1) Gazette Notification. This delay vitiates the proceedings. Per contra it is contended that substance
of Section 4(1) Notification was published on 8.2.99 at convenient places in the locality and by oversight it has been set out as 2.3.99 in Section
5-A proceedings and the said factual error has been corrected by issue of errata and the same was communicated to the petitioners and was given
due publicity.
The learned Government Advocate produced the files. A perusal of the files would show that substance of Section 4(1) Notification was
published in the locality on 8.2.99. The Village Administrative Officer has published the Notification in the locality on 8.2.99 in the presence of
witnesses. Therefore it is clear that factually substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published in the locality on 8.2.99 and not on 2.3.99. After
noticing the factual mistake committed, an errata has been issued to correct the said date in the Section 5-A enquiry proceedings.
20.Mr.Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while referring to the proceedings u/s 5-A was harping that according to
Section 5-A proceedings, publication of substance was on 2.23.99. If that be so, the writ petitions, according to the learned counsel deserve to be
allowed and the acquisition has to be quashed since all the other points have to be decided consequently in favour of the petitioners.
This Court went through the files and as per records finds that substance of Section 4(1) Notification was factually published in the locality on
8.2.99. Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Government gazette on 16.12.98, published in the two tamil dailies on 8.2.99. Section 4(1)
Notification was published in the Tahsildar''s office, the Collectorate, the Corporation of Chennai as well as in the office notice board on 8.2.99.
Substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published in the locality on 8.2.99 in the presence of 12 witnesses, namely, Ravikumar, Balakrishnan,
Thangaraj, Mohideen, Saraswathi and others. The substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published by beat of tom tom on 8.2.99. Section
4(1) Notification was also affixed on 8.2.99 in the office notice boards of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the local Tahsildar,
local police station, the Sub-Registrar''s office, Sub-Post Master''s office at Koyambedu, Collectorate and in the office of the City Municipal
Corporation. Certificates are available from the said offices and there are contemporaneous materials available in the file to show that substance of
Section 4(1) Notification was published on 8.2.99 as seen from the endorsement of the Government servant, who effected the publication of
substance of Section 4(1) Notification in the locality by beat of tom tom. Therefore, it is clear from the files that the substance of Section 4(1)
Notification was published in the locality on 8.2.99. This Court on a perusal of the file accepts the stand taken by the respondents and holds that
substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published at convenient places in the locality by affixture of notice and by beat of tom tom on 8.2.99.
However, Mr. Bhavanantham, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 5-A proceedings communicated to the petitioners by the
Land Acquisition Officer wherein it has been set out that substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published in the locality on 2.3.99. This is
obviously a mistake. In fact when the mistake was found out, an errata was issued by the Land Acquisition officer to the said Section 5-A enquiry
proceedings to substitute the date as 8.2.99 instead of 2.3.99. Even the said errata has been communicated to the petitioners and others. This
Court is satisfied that it was only a bona fide mistake in setting out the date as 2.3.99, while actually substance of Section 4(1) has been published
on 8.2.99 in the locality as detailed supra. The contention advanced to the contra by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained.
When once this Court holds that last of the publication, namely, substance has been published in the locality on 8.2.99, it follows automatically
that Section 6 Declaration was issued on 2.2.2000, is within one year from the date of last of the publication. Therefore, it follows that Section 6
Declaration has been issued validly within one year from the date of last of the publication of Section 4(1) Notification.
Mainly it was contended that substance has been published in the locality only on 2.3.99, which would mean that within 60 days from the
publication of Section 4(1) Notification in the gazette on 16.12.1998, all the publications required to be made u/s 4(1) has not been complied
within the sixty days and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the further proceedings are rendered illegal. In this case, as
already pointed out, substance of Section 4(1) Notification, which is the last of the Section 4(1) Notification publication, was effected on 8.2.99.
Therefore, the contention that proviso to Section 4(1) as introduced by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1997 has not been complied fails.
Within sixty days, factually, substance of Section 4(1) Notification, which is the last of the Notification has been published from the date of
publication in the gazette. Hence, the 2nd and 3rd contentions also fail.
Taking up the fourth contention, it is contended that Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been contravened, in that, after
receipt of the objections, the remarks of the requisitioning body has not been forwarded to the petitioners and also after forwarding the remarks, if
any, there was no enquiry u/s 5-A read with Rule 4 (b) of the rules and, therefore, the acquisition is vitiated.
In the present case, concedingly the objections were not filed within 30 days. It is the well settled legal position that if objections are not filed
within 30 days, it is not obligatory on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue a notice or call upon the land owner to take part in the
enquiry. This position has been well settled by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. Abdul Razak Sahib, . In the said
context, the Apex Court held thus :-
Now, we may turn to Section 5-A(1) of the Act which says:
5-A. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public
purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the
locality, as the case may be.
Section 5-A empowers the interested person to object to the acquisition of any land but his objection should be filed within thirty days from the
date of the issue of the notification. Any objection filed thereafter need not be considered as the same is filed after the time stipulated in Section 5-
A(1).
In the present cast, factually Form III notice, namely, substance was published in the locality on 8.2.99. Form III-A Notice dated 9.6.99 was
served on the land owners/interested persons. Notice for Section 5-A enquiry was sent on 9.6.99 and petitioners appeared on 14.7.99. The
petitioners submitted objections on 3.7.99 at the first instance and further objections on 22.10.99 and subsequently on other dates. The land
owners were served with a notice of the said 5-A enquiry. The land owners filed their objections, but it was beyond 30 days from the date of
Section 4(1) Notification. Yet the copy of the objections submitted by the land owners was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority on 17-9-99 calling for remarks. On 24.9.99 remarks were received from the requisitioning body submitting
that the lands are essentially required for the Koyambedu wholesale market complex. The remarks of the requisitioning body was sent to the land
owners, and interested persons appeared for enquiry on 22.10.1999 and submitted further objections.
The land owners once again filed their objections after the receipt of the remarks. The land owners took part in the 5-A enquiry proceedings
after receipt of the remarks from the requisitioning body. The Land Acquisition officer considered the objections as well as the remarks at the
hearing of Section 5-A enquiry and found that the objections are not sustainable and overruled them. The land owners appeared personally for the
enquiry, the objections were forwarded to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, who submitted its remarks and, thereafter the
petitioners were called upon to state their objections once again and the enquiry was held calling upon the petitioner to appear on 22.10.1999.
Therefore, it is clear that Rule 4 of The Land Acquisition Rules has been complied with in conducting Section 5-A enquiry. Hence, the fourth
contention also fails.
By way of sample, the material dates in respect of W.P. No.14433/00, which are relevant are given below :-
S.No.
Particulars
Material Information
1
G.O. No. & Date
G.O. Ms.No.429, Housing & Urban Dev. Dept. (UD III) Dept. Dated 13.11.1998
2
Gazette Publication
48-A Part II, Section 2 (Supplement) dt. 16.12.1998
3
News Paper Publication
i) Madurai Mani
ii) Kathiravan
6.1.1999
6.1.1999
4
Locality Publication
8.2.1999
5
Errata Publication
6
5-A Notice Date
9.6.1999
7
5-A Enquiry
14.7.1999 ( At the time of enquiry the petitioner has appeared)
8
Service of Notice
9
Objection given on
3.7.1999
10
Remarks for objections forwarded to requisitioning body
17.9.1999
11
Remarks of the requisitioning body communicated to the petitioners
24.9.1999
12
Further enquiry conducted on
22.10.1999
13
Objections given by the petitioner
22.10.1999
14
Again objection forwarded to the requisitioning body
27.10.1999
15
Remarks from the requisitioning body communicated to the land owner/petitioner
17.11.99 & 19.11.1999
The dates of hearing and forwarding the objections are almost the same and it is not necessary to refer to the details in respect of other writ
petitions. Details in one of the writ petition is more than sufficient to hold that Rule 4 read with Section 5-A has been complied with and, hence, this
contention has to fail.
The last of the contentions advanced being that the publication of Section 4(1) Notification was made in two Tamil dailies having no circulation
and this renders the acquisition illegal. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions in para 5 in a passing manner it is set out thus :
The same has said to have been published in Newspaper in ""Kathiravan"" and ""Madurai Mani"" which are not in circulation in our area.
Except this passing reference, no specific grounds have been raised. It is pointed out by the Government Advocate that the two dailies are
Registered Newspapers having sufficient circulation in the locality. It is further stated that the two dailies are published from Madras only and have
circulation in the city and suburbs. Though one of the news dailies is known as ""Madurai Mani"", it is being published at No.2, Thanapppa Chetty
Street, Triplicane, Madras 5. So also, the other Tamil daily, namely, ""Kathiravan"" is published at Madras and both the dailies are having circulation
in the City of Madras and suburbs.
The two newspapers are having circulation in the locality and there is no doubt. No material at all has been placed by way of affidavit of the
News Agency or other competent person in the field to hold that the said dailies have no circulation in the locality. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that Section 4(1), which prescribes the publication in two dailies having circulation in the locality is satisfied. Hence, the fifth
contention also fails.
In the circumstances, all the five contentions advanced by Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above
batch of writ petitions cannot be countenanced and, consequently, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also dismissed.