Judgment:- The suit, which gives rise to this second appeal by the defendant, was filed by two plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madurai and for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,000 for alleged wrongful demolition of the building that stood on that property.

2. One Dr. Venkatarama Iyer, who owned lands in R.S. Nos. 260 to 264, had an existing source of water supply from sluice No.4 of Sakulam fed by the Periyar system. He and his relative desired that they should get direct supply of water from the Periyar channel distri-butory No. 3. He therefore moved the Public Works Department for the purpose of getting the change in the water supply. This involved the acquisition of certain lands measuring about 6 cents in R.S. No. 286/2 lying in Sennagarampatti Village belonging to the plaintiffs. The Government issued the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the 6th of December, 1961. Section 4 (2) provides that whenever it appears to the Government that land in any locality was needed or was likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect should be published in the Official Gazette and that the Collector should cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Section 5-A (1) of that Act contemplates that any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4 sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land. The Collector proposed an enquiry under section 5-A by issuing the requisite notice, which was served on the plaintiffs on 1st June, 1962. The plaintiffs filed their objections on 16th June, 1962 and appeared before him on 18th June, 1962. Thereafter as contemplated by section 6 (1) of the Act, a declaration, was made by the Government. As section 6 is somewhat material for our present purpose it is necessary to extract it here:

“6(1). Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declara-tion shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders.”

Before the declaration was made on 6th of February 1963 the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 617 of 1961. It was dismissed even at the stage of admission. It is only thereafter that the enquiry under section 5-A came to be made. The plaintiffs came forward with a suit in 1966. In the plaint it was alleged that after filing of the objections on 18th June, 1962 there was no further information regarding the proposal of acquisition. It was further alleged that the plaintiff. had put up a building in the suit site at considerable cost and that the authorities had demolished it. According to the plaintiffs, the land acquisition pro-ceedings were taken to benefit a set of influential persons so that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by mala fides. It is on these facts that the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of the suit properties and also for damages for the demolition of the building.

3. The State of Madras, which was the defendant, denied that the acquisition proceedings were taken for a single individual. It pointed out that the objections of the plaintiffs, had been considered, investigated and a report submitted thereon to the Government for a declaration. The Government overruled the objections and approved the declaration under section 6 The Government referred to the payment of compensation and submitted that the declaration made under section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was con-clusive and final so that it could not be scrutinised by the Court.

4. The le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document