AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—The petitioner is a co-operative Society formed by the Railway employees, which was registered on 8.1.1995 with a specific
object of providing house sites to its members by acquiring lands and constructing houses thereon. The lands were purchased by the society and a
lay out was prepared, which was approved by the Commissioner of Town Panchayat, Kasiapalayam in proceedings No. 1484 of 89, dated
13.2.1990. According to the petitioners, the construction work begun in April, 1990 and was nearing completion, when the notification u/s 4(1) of
the Act was published by the Government in May, 1991. Though the name of the petitioner society was not found in the said notification, the
Society on coming to know of the acquisition proceedings filed its objections in the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. Several objections were raised by
the Society and the same were forwarded to the requisitioning body, who replied with their remarks on the objections. An oral enquiry was held
by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.3.1992. An Officer of the petitioner society appeared at the enquiry and gave a statement. The
requisitioning body was also represented by the appropriate Officer at the enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 23.3.1992
setting out the objections raised by the petitioner and the remarks made by the requisitioning body and the reply thereto. One of the remarks made
by the requisitioning body was that the petitioner''s lands are situated at the entrance of the scheme area of the property and if they are excluded it
will affect the entrance. After referring to the objections and the remarks in detail, the Land Acquisition Officer stated in the last paragraph of the
proceedings, dated 19.3.1992 that he had carefully considered the objections and the remarks and he accepted the remarks of the requisitioning
body, while rejecting the objections made by the petitioner. Apart from the said statement, the Land Acquisition Officer has not chosen to give any
reason whatever for rejecting the objections of the writ petitioner, or accepting the remarks of the requisitioning body. The Land Acquisition
Officer has not considered the issue whether the lands of the petitioner should be exclused in such a manner that it will not affect the scheme of the
Housing Board as such as whether the entrance to the scheme area could be shifted a little further, so that the lands of the petitioner purchased by
the Society on behalf of the various employees of the Railway could be saved.
The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Officer and issued a declaration u/s 6 of the Act, which was
published in the year 1992. The petitioner has raised an objection in this Writ petition that the lands should not have been acquired by the
Government, in view of the fact that the society has purchased the same with a view to construct houses for the poor employees of the Southern
Railway, who are its members. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and
another etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others etc., by learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case some of the co-operative Societies with
membership of Government servants mostly of the lower strata had acquired lands with a view to provide housing accommodation for its
members. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was challenged. The Supreme Court found that an extent of 22 acres of land could
conveniently be deleted from the acquisition proceedings and released in favour of the co-operative societies, so that they could be utilised by the
members of the societies for their residential accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case also, the lands belonging
to the petitioner society may be conveniently excluded from the acquisition proceedings, so that the scheme of the Housing Board will not be
affected in any manner thereby. We find that the said objection has not been considered by the land Acquisition Officer or by the Government. In
the circumstances, the declaration u/s 6 of the Act is vitiated and consequently, the declaration issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 307
(Housing and Urban Development), dated 8th June, 1992 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to hold a fresh enquiry u/s 5A of the Act,
by providing reasonable opportunity to both parties (Petitioner and the requisitioning body) so as to enable them to put forward their respective
contentions in the enquiry. The second respondent shall also consider and decide whether the lands of the petitioner could be conveniently
excluded from the acquisition proceedings without affecting the scheme framed by the Housing Board and in which case, the entrance to the
scheme area could be shifted a little further.
With the above direction, this writ petition shall stand partly allowed to the extent of quashing G.O.Ms. No. 307 (Housing and Urban
Development), 8th June, 1992. There will be no order as to costs.
