Vivekanandan/S. Chinnappa Gounder vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings proposing to. acquire the lands of an extent of 0.95 hectares in Survey No. 75 3/1, Rangampalayam, Erode Village & Taluk. Periyar District, and an extent of 1 acre 60 cents in Survey No. 758/1. Rangampalayam. Erode Town, Periyar District, which are the subject matters of W.P. Nos. 11608 and 11609 of 1994 respectively, for the purpose of providing LIG. MIG and HIG houses at Erode Village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District, initiated under a notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in GO Ms. No. 1240, Housing and Urban Development dated 9.10.1990. an enquiry made u/s 5-A of the Act and a consequential declaration made u/s 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 679, Housing and Urban Development dated 29.9.1992, the Petitioners seek the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondents comprised in the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act issued by the first Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 1240. Housing and Urban Development dated 9.10.1990 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 31.10.1990 and the consequential declaration u/s 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 679, Housing and Urban Development dated 29.9.1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.9.1992, to quash the entire proceedings thereunder in so far as they relate to the house site belonging to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 11608 of 1994 in S.F. No. 743/1 situated at Rangampalayam, Erode Village and Taluk, Periyar District, and in so far as they relate to the house site belonging to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 11609 of 1994 in S.F. No. 758/1 situated at Rangampalayam, Erode Town, Periyar District, and to consequently direct the Respondents to forbear from acquiring the Petitioner''s house site for housing purposes.

Pointing out that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 9.10.1990, but the same was published in the locality only on 4.10.1991, i.e., after nearly a period of one year. Mr. M. M. Sundresh learned Counsel for the Petitioners, placing reliance on the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in The The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S. Jayaraman, and in The Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Natarajan reported in 1998 (1) LACC 29, contends that the delay between the publication of the notification u/s 4(i) of the Act in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality vitiates the impugned land acquisition.

Even though Mr. M. M. Sundresh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contends that the impugned acquisition proceedings suffers for want of prior approval of the Government before passing an award as contemplated under proviso (1) to Section 11 of the Act, after a careful perusal of the relevant file, the said contention is found to be untenable. In view of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Administration. Chepauk, Chennai, dated 19.9.1994, according approval as to the valuation for the purpose of award enquiry.

Therefore, the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner remains to be dealt with is whether the delay between delay between the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality exceeding two months, vitiates the entire land acquisition proceedings in the light of the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, as referred to above.

In The The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S. Jayaraman, . the Division Bench of this Court has held that the delay between the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months, and that if it exceeds two months, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Following the said decision i.e.. in The The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S. Jayaraman, , another Division Bench of this Court, in The Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Natarajan reported in 1998 (1) LACC 29, has held that any delay which causes a deep gap between the date of publication of the public notice and the substance of the said notification at convenient places in the locality beyond a reasonable time, would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings, rendering the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act as illegal.

With respect to the views expressed in both the decisions of the Division Benches, I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to quash the entire impugned acquisition proceedings for the reasons that even where a mandatory requirement of the publication of the notification in two daily newspapers as contemplated u/s 4(1) of the Act, is violated, and instead, the notification was published only in one of the newspapers, the same was construed only as an irregularity by the Apex Court in Venkataswamappa Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), holding that such an irregularity would not, by itself, vitiate the validity of the vers'' notification, nor would amount to a violation of the requirement u/s 4(1) of the Act, as the object of publication of the notice u/s 4(1) of the Act is to put a notice to the owners that the land is proposed to be acquired for a public purpose and that they are prevented to deal with the land in any manner detrimental to the public purpose. In the instant case, even though there was a delay in publishing the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the locality, the fact remains that the Petitioners participated in the enquiry made u/s 5-A of the Act and were permitted to raise all their objections, and therefore, the Petitioners cannot be said to be prejudiced in view of the delay between the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette and the publication of the substance of the same in the locality on 4.10.1991.

Therefore, finding no merits in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in view of the decision of the Apex court in Venkataswamappa Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), . these writ petitions are dismissed. However, since the award itself was passed during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Petitioners are at liberty to submit their applications for reference u/s 18 of the Act against the quantum of award to the Collector and the same shall be entertained and enquired into by the Respondents, who shall pass appropriate orders on merits without rejecting the same on the ground of delay.

In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 17558 and 17560 of 1994 are also dismissed.