T.R. Velayudham and others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and two others

T. Meenakumari,J.

The writ petitions arise under the Land Acquisition Act to call for the records pertaining to issue of Section 4(1) Notification under the Land

Acquisition Act made in G.O.Ms. No. 433 Housing and Urban Development dated 14.5.1990 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette

on 11.6.1991 in respect of the petitioners'' lands at Sholinganallur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District and quash the acquisition

proceedings in pursuance of the said Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The petitioner''s case is that their lands were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood

Development Scheme by issue of Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No. 433 Housing and Urban Development

dated 14.5.1990. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte on 23.5.1990. The paper publication was made in two daily

Newspapers on 4.6.1990. Publication in locality was made on 19.6.1990. Learned Counsel has argued that the second respondent has not

caused any publication in the locality as contemplated under Rule 1 of the Rules framed u/s 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel

has further argued that Rule 1 is mandatory and non-compliance of the same vitiates the land acquisition proceedings. The enquiry u/s 5A was

conducted on 26.2.1991. Declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in G.O.Ms. No. 948 dated 7.6.1991. Learned counsel has

further argued that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry as envisaged under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Learned counsel

for the petitioner has argued that on that ground also, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the

notice of this court the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed u/s 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by the Land

Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVII of 1923. Rule 1 of the abovesaid Rules reads thus:

Issue and publication of notice by the Collector- Immediately after the publication of the notification u/s 4(1), the Collector shall issue a notice

stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to

lodge before the Collector within thirty a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the purposed acquisition. This notice should be published

at convenient places in the locality, and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar, and in the nearest police station.

Relying upon the above rule, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no issuance of any notice after the publication of the

notification u/s 4(1) by the Collector stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose and requiring all persons

interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within thirty days after the issue of the notification, a statement in writing of their objections, if

any, to the proposed acquisition. In view of the above, learned counsel has argued that the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be

quashed for compliance of the requirements under Rules 1 and 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules, Learned counsel has also argued that even

though the petitioners have filed their objections, no enquiry was conducted and no notice was issued to the. petitioners and the same is contrary to

Rule 3(b) and proceedings to acquire the petitioners lands without such an enquiry is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents stating that notification u/s 4(1) was published in the Gazettee on 23.5.1990 and it was

published in Tamil Dailies viz. ''Dinakaran'' on 4.6.1990 and Murasoli on 5.6.1990. The notification was also published in the Village and other

public places on 19.6.1990. The respondents have denied the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent has not caused any

publication of the Notification in the locality as contemplated under Rule 1 of the Rules framed u/s 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also

stated in the counter that the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board-acquisitioning body have been forwarded to the petitioners by Registered

Post Acknowledgment Due on 1.3.1991. But the same has been returned ''unserved''. It is also stated in the counter that notice under Rule 3(b)

has been served by affixture on the petitioners'' lands on 26.4.1991. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12333 of 1991 alone has appeared

for the enquiry and she has given her statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within one year and the

requirements under Rule 1 of the land Acquisition Rules have not been followed. Hence land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on

that ground also. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thiruvaleeswarar Temple v. State of Tamil

Nadu, 1990 M.L.J. 142. The Division Bench has held that the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 1 of the Tamil

Nadu Rules under the Act with regard to publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act are mandatory in nature and non-

compliance with them will vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings.

In these cases, learned counsel has argued that separate notice has to be issued by the Collector immediately after publication of notice u/s 4(1)

of the Act and that notice has to be published in the convenient places in the locality.

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:

Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon -- (1). Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in

any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official

Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause

public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and

the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.

In my view, the rules have to be read along with the relevant Sections of the Land Acquisition Act. u/s 4(1) of the Act, the Collector after

publication of the notification in the official gazette, shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in

the said locality. It has also been made clear that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter

referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. Further, Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules has to be read along with Section 4(1) of

the Land Acquisition Act 1923. In these cases, the Collector has published the notice in the village and other public places on 19.6.1990. The

above notice can be termed as the ''notice'' caused by the Collector in the public place in compliance with Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules

after the publication of notice u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. I see no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no

notice was caused by the Collector immediately after the publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. In the counter, it has been stated by the

respondents that the remarks of the requisitioning body has been sent by the registered post of the petitioners on 1.3.1991 as required under Rule

3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Since the same on was returned ''unserved'', the notice was affixed on the petitioners'' lands on 26.4.1991. It is

also stated in the counter that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12333 of 1991 alone has appeared for the enquiry and she has given her statement and

the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10654 and 12195 of 1991 did not appear for the enquiry. Under the circumstances it has to be held that there was

compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. In these cases, the notification was also published in the village and other, public places on

19.6.1990 and declaration u/s 6 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government No. 280 Part II Section 2, Extraordinary dated 11.6.1991. As

declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made within a period of one year from the last date of publication i.e., 19.6.1990, it cannot be

said that declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made beyond a period of one year. I see no ground to interfere in the writ petitions.

The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending the writ miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.