AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—Petitioners 1 and 2 along with certain minor children claim to be the owners of the land measuring a total extent of 6.34
acres comprised in S. No. 61/2B in Pooluvapatty village, Coimbatore taluk. By a sale deed, dated 25-3-1986 Petitioners 1 and 2 conveyed an
extent of three acres to and in favour of the third Petitioner. While so, by G.O. Ms. No. 2568, Social Welfare, dated 14-11-1984, an extent of
3.05 acres in the said survey number was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of Pooluvapatty village. It was
published in the Government Gazette on 19-12-1984. According to the Petitioners, they were not aware of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the declaration u/s 6 of the Act. They, however, received notice under Sections 9(3) and
10 of the Act and appeared for the award enquiry on 18-3-1987. In the award enquiry they offered to surrender the northern half of total extent of
6.34 acres and prayed for dropping the acquisition proceedings in respect of 3.05 acres in the southern half, which they had sold to the third
Petitioner. Ignoring this suggestion the Respondents have proceeded to pass the award. The writ petition is to quash the notification u/s 4(1) and
the declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents, wherein it is admitted that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued in G.O. Ms. No.
2568, Social Welfare, dated 14-11-1984. It was published in the Gazette dated 19-12-1984 and in the local newspapers on 12-6-1985 and 13-
6-1985. The substance of the 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 3-7-1985. An enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was held on 13-8-1985.
Before that, notices had been issued under Forms 3 and 3-A of the Rules framed u/s 55 of the Act. The second Petitioner did appear for the
enquiry u/s 5-A on 13-8-1985 and expressed that she had no objection to the proposed acquisition. Based on the report submitted by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the Government approved the declaration u/s 6 and the same was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1360, Social Welfare, dated 23-5-
1986. It was also published in the Gazette, newspapers and the locality. It is only after the completion of the Section 5-A enquiry report, the third
Petitioner claims to have purchased three acres of lands from Petitioners 1 and 2. For the award enquiry, however, notice was issued to the third
Petitioner also and he also appeared. All the Petitioners, no doubt, suggested at the award enquiry for acquiring the northern portion of the land,
leaving out the portion sold to the third Petitioner. This was not acceptable to the Land Acquisition Officer and the offer was rejected.
Consequently, an award was passed on 25-3-1987, and it is at this stage that the writ petition has been filed.
Mr. R. Arunagirinathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raised the following points:
The time gap between the Gazette notification of the Section 4(1) notification on 19-12-1984 and the publication in the village on 13-7-1985
has not been properly explained. According to the Petitioners, this vitiates the acquisition proceedings.
The second point is that the publication in the village has not been done in accordance with the Rule 1 of the Rules framed u/s 55 of the Act,
inasmuch as there was no copy affixed in the nearest Police Station.
The offer to surrender the northern portion in lieu of the acquired land had not been properly considered.
I had adjourned the case on several occasions to enable the Government Advocate to produce the records regarding the publication of the
substance of the notification in the village. The records have been produced today and there is a clear certificate by the Village Administrative
Officer that the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the village of Pooluvapatty and the public were made known of
the same. There is also a certificate to the effect that the notification was published by torn torn in the village. There is also a certificate that the
notice was published in the Collector''s office on 9-7-1985. Similarly the notification was published in the Tahsildar''s office on 9-7-1985 and the
Tahsildar has certified the same. The only defect that is pointed out is that the notice was not published in the nearest Police Station. While it is
seen from the Rules issued u/s 55 of the Act, that the copy of the notice should also be affixed in the nearest Police Station, learned Government
Advocate brings to my notice G.O. Ms. No. 376, Revenue dated 6-12-1992, in and by which the requirement to affix the notice in the Police
Station was dispensed with. Learned Government Advocate has also produced before me a letter G.O. Rt. No. 605, dated 5-10-1951 directing
the Land Acquisition Manual to be suitably amended by removing the necessity to affix notices in the Police Station. I am inclined to accept the
stand taken by the Respondents that there is no more any obligation on the part of the Respondents to affix notice in the Police Station. Further,
there is sufficient proof to show that the substance of the notification was published in the village and in the office of the Collector and Tahsildar. I
am, therefore, satisfied that the requirement u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is fully complied with. It has to be remembered that the Section
4(1) only directs publication to be given in convenient places in the locality and there is no mention of any Police Station in the said Section.
However, reliance is placed on the decision reported in A. Vembuli Naicker Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . But on a perusal of the
judgment, I do not find any support for the Petitioners'' case. Inasmuch as the rules have subsequently been amended and the said amendment was
not brought to the notice of the Court. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to follow the said ratio.
So far as the time gap between the Gazette publication and the publication in the locality, I am satisfied that the delay is not long enough to vitiate
the acquisition proceedings. The perusal of the records shows that there has been continuity in the acquisition proceedings and especially in the
matter of the publication of the notice in the village, in the Collector''s office and in the Tahsildar''s office. In State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v.
Rajendran and 23 Ors. 1993 (2) LW 352 a Division Bench of this Court has held that even a delay of one year between the Gazette and the
publication in the village, will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings, provided the delay is properly explained. In this case, I have already pointed
out that the records do show that there has been continuity of proceedings and there is no delay, which will vitiate the proceedings. To the same
effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Raghubir Dayal, . In that case a time gap of six months was held
to be insufficient to vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
So far as the last contention that the offer of the northern half of the lands had not been properly considered, I am of the opinion that the reason
given in the counter-affidavit is perfectly justified and acceptable. It is well known that an acquisition is complete once the declaration u/s 6 of the
Act is made. In this case the offer is said to have been made only at the time of the award enquiry. Even that was considered to be not feasible and
the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, rejected the same. The Court must also notice the fact that at the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, the owner of
the land had stated that she had no objection for the acquisition. Therefore, in my opinion, the Petitioners are not justified in challenging these
acquisition proceedings and all the points raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners are found to be unsustainable. The writ petition,
therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.