IMPORTANT POINT
Land Acquisition Act needs to be replaced at the earliest.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition of their land before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. They are in appeal, by special leave.

2. On the requisition of Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam (for short, ‘the Corporation’) for making available land for expansion of their depot, particularly for a workshop, at Chidambaram, the State Government of Tamil Nadu (for short, ‘the Government’) issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) which was published in the Gazette on March 3, 1989 notifying for general information that the land mentioned therein, namely, land admeasuring 1.45 acres comprised in T.S. No. 14, classified as government wet land in Chidambaram Municipal Town, South Arcot District was needed for the above public purpose. The notification under Section 4(1) was also published in the two newspapers on November 18, 1988 and in the locality on March 27, 1989. The appellants filed objections to the acquisition before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, ‘RDO’), Chidambaram. The diverse objections to the acquisition were raised; one of such objections being that the other lands behind the existing depot of the Corporation were available and could be used for the purpose for which their land was sought to be acquired. They stated that their family was dependant upon the income from the saw mill existing on the land and by compulsory acquisition of their land, they would be deprived of the sole means of livelihood.

3. The RDO considered the objections put forth on behalf of the appellants and submitted his report to the Government on conclusion of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.

4. It appears that when the report of the RDO was under consideration, the appellants sent a representation to the Government bringing to its notice that the land belonging to Tamil Nadu Evengelical Lutheran Church (‘TELC’) just behind the existing depot has been advertised for sale and, therefore, instead of resorting to the compulsory acquisition of the appellants’ land, the land of TELC may be acquired.

5. The Government was not persuaded by the appellants’ objections and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the Gazette on March 21, 1990. The publication of the Section 6 declaration was made by other modes as well.

6. The appellants challenged the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the writ petition before the Madras High Court. In opposition to the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by his order dated November 18, 1998.

7. Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants preferred intra-court appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order on July 25, 2001.

8. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the appellants raised two-fold contention. His first contention was that the appellants’ objections about the availability of land belonging to TELC which is situated behind the existing depot of the Corporation and was available for sale were not rationally considered by the RDO and the Government. He submitted that the livelihood of about 40 members of the family was directly affected by the compulsory acquisition of their land and, therefore, the objections ought to have been considered in a reasonable manner more so since the public purpose for which the appellants’ land was sought to be acquired could have been easily met by the acquisition of the TELC’s land. In this regard, he referred to three decisions of this Court, namely, (i) Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others1 (2000) 7 SCC 296, (ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others2 (2005) 7 SCC 627 and (iii) Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through LRs. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh