The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department vs The Special Tahsildar (Neighbourhood Scheme) Acquisition Officer

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.1999 made in W.P. No.

10363 of 1992, in and by which the learned Judge, quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground of violation of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu

Land Acquisition Rules (in short ""the Rules"").

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. A. Sivaji, Learned Counsel for the respondents.

In view of the limited issue, it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit and counter affidavit.

The learned single Judge, after finding that Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, has not been fully complied with, interfered

with the matter and allowed the writ petition. It is seen from the particulars furnished that enquiry u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in

short ""the Act"") was conducted on 20 .06.1991. It is not in dispute that the land owners/writ petitioners submitted their objection within the time as

provided. They also participated in the enquiry. The particulars furnished in the counter affidavit show that the remarks of the requisitioning body

was obtained only on 25.06.1991, i.e., after the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act.

It is not in dispute that enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was conducted on 20.06.1991. Rule 3(b) of the Rules [(now Rule 4(b)] mandates that if any

objection is received within the time prescribed, the same have to be forwarded to the requisitioning Department and on receipt of their remarks,

the Land Acquisition Officer has to conduct enquiry. It further shows that in the enquiry the lands owners as well as representatives of the

requisitioning body / Department are entitled to participate. The Courts have held that compliance of Rule 3(b) [(now Rule 4(b)] is mandatory and

failure to follow the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. This aspect was considered by the learned Judge and rightly quashed the

acquisition proceedings for non-compliance of Rule 3(b). Though in the counter affidavit particularly in para 4 the Deputy Secretary to

Government, Housing Urban Development Department has stated that remarks of the requisitioning body have been communicated to the

objectors, conveniently, the date has not been specifically stated. On the other hand, in the subsequent paragraph, viz., in para 6, the very same

deponent has stated that enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was conducted on 19.06.2001 and 20.06.1991 and the remarks of the requisitioning body

was received on 25.06.1991. It is not clear that after receipt of remarks from the requisitioning body, whether further enquiry was conducted apart

from the one conducted on 19.06.1991 and 20.06.1991 as stated in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

No costs.